TNAG-0265-FCO40-301-Legislation-for-copyright-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 90

RECEIVED IN

REGISTRY No. 51

28 JUL 1970

BOARD OF TRADE

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT DEPARTMENT 25 Southampton Buildings, LONDON W.C.2

Telegrams: Patoff, London, W.C.2 Walla"

HKK 16/2

Our ref: I.P.C.D.36862/2 Your ref: HKK 16/2

Telephone: 01-405 8721, ext.

110-

!!! - was

26

A. W. Gaminara, Esq., Hong Kong Department,

LAST

REF.

NEAT

REF.

27)

22nd July 1970

Rest

Pe. Ryrecin

En

28/2

Foreign and Commonwealth Office, LONDON, S.W.1

Dear Gaminara,

1.

Extension of the Copyright Act 1956 to

Hong Kong

We have been considering the draft Order in Council which you sent to us with your letter of 2nd June and we have the following comments to make.

2. Article 1 to 4 We understand from our legal branch that under the new

style of drafting (as shown e.g. in SI copy enclosed) Statutory Instru- ments, Article 4 should become Article 1 and Article 3 should become Article 2. Articles 1 and 2 will become 3 and 4.

3. Design Copyright Act 1968

I believe you indicated to us on the telephone that the Governor of Hong Kong has decided to have the Design Copyright Act 1968 (which amends the 1956 Act) extended to the territory. If so, the extension could be made by adding the 1968 Act to the list of amending Acts in the second paragraph of Part I of Schedule I. The advice of the Board of Trade Solicitor is that the reference to Article 1 to the Copyright Act 1956 must be interpreted as referring to the Act before amendment.

4. Schedule I Part II Modification of Section 22

Where reference is made in sub-section (7) to "any copy to which the Section applies of a work" it would be better to refer to "any copy of a work to which the Section applies". The meaning is the same but it appears to be a more tidy way of expressing it.

5. Section 40

6.

7(35

ow

HWB. 16/6. Vor A.

Some confusion has arisen over Section 40(3) of the Copyright Act. I think there is a fairly full explanation of our views in Wallace's letter of 23rd July 1968.

The purpose of Section 40(3) is to absolve the diffusers of a programme from the necessity to seek out and pay owners of copyright in the works broadcast. As was explained in that letter, in the context of BBC and ITV broadcasts only, it was unnecessary for diffusers to pay.

This Thould read Avec

23 Febron, 1968.

60.8.70.

(.B.D.T. confirm this)

Page 90Page 91

2.