The directive on the legal protection of computer programs

Conclusion Other matters which are essentially left to national provisions include issues of fair use (apart from Article 5), moral rights, authorship and ownership. However, the bland terms of Article 2 (dealing with authorship) was only reached after one of the more controversial proposals was rejected. This was the suggestion that the ownership of a program which has been commissioned should belong to the commissioner rather than the author. This would have been a provision which would have been out of step with most countries' copyright legislation. In any case, it is probably a matter best dealt with by contract. The author, or his employer, will be able to negotiate so that their creativity can be retained in the organisation while the commissioner can ensure that the product can be fully and beneficially used in his organisation. if that requires a transfer of the full copyright then the assignment must be contracted.Article 10(1) requires that member states shall implement the provisions of the Directive by 1st January 1991. Given that many of the requirements are already in place in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, it will be a nice matter of judgment for the United Kingdom to decide how that implementation is to occur. There are certainly a sufficient number of differences from our present law, and ambiguities as to their effect, to require some substantive modification of the scheme of the 1988 Act.