Some laud the UK government’s consultation on changes to the UK designs framework as a “new dawn for UK design law.”
But what’s the real story? How will it affect UK designers? Will future intellectual property (IP) policy and or legislation improve the current David & Goliath copycat culture?
Will the long-awaited review ensure relevance and reform for all – including the UK’s 1.97million grassroots designers – to simplify protection and strengthen enforcement, when designs are stolen?
The jury is out.
While mainly technical and procedural in its approach, the consultation is also a one-off opportunity for designers to tell their story.
Real stories resonate. And it’s important the government understands the real cost of copying, where design infringement is happening, why it’s happening and the cost of copying on businesses, individuals and the future of UK design, both financial and emotional.
Unregistered rights need more force
ACID has fought, cajoled and campaigned for many years for a fresh review of what is an incredibly complex, often impenetrable legal system.
A system where the cost, time and stress of taking legal action to address the existential copycat culture is more than challenging; it can be decimating.
The majority of UK designers rely on copyright, and two different kinds of unregistered design rights. There is a significant overlap – thankfully addressed in the consultation – but the anomaly in protection is striking.
Copyright lasts for a creator’s life plus another 70 years, while the two unregistered design rights max out at 15 years. Intentionally infringing copyright can mean up to 10 years in prison, yet intentionally copying an unregistered design carries no criminal penalty at all.
We hold the view there should be parity across both IP rights.
For example, the photographer who captures a new 3D product in an image will hold stronger rights than the designer who invested years and resources bringing that product to market, a clear inequity.
Is it fair to structure copyright law around expression and culture and design law around industrial production and competition? Can one weigh up the talent and creativity of, say, a song writer against an iconic furniture designer, both attracting different IP rights?
Our view therefore is that an “effective deterrent system with robust capability” must include criminalising the intentional infringement of an unregistered design, in line with the criminal penalties facing those who infringe registered designs. We are also seeking more robust IP protection generally.
Any prosecution needs to pass the two-limb test in the Attorney General’s guidelines – that a prosecution must be in the public interest, and that there is a greater than 50% likelihood of a conviction.
An “overstated” case against
Opposition to creating criminal liability for deliberately infringing an unregistered design has come from some global businesses – and their stooges.
Their flimsy argument, without evidence, claims that criminalising the theft of designer’s creations would be “chilling for innovation” and “disincentivise designers.”
Even the government, after the last consultation, said this had been “overstated.”
UK design law policy is currently determined by the IPO, which sits within the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). The main role of this body is to register patents and trade marks, and, to a lesser extent, designs.
But as the vast majority of designs are unregistered, policy in this area is being left to an organisation that is not close to the needs and interests of designers.
Perhaps design policy might be better situated within the Department of Culture, Media and Sport which has a better understanding of the creative sensibilities of designers?
The consultation proposes modernising design law, clarifying protection for generated interactive interfaces (GUIs), animations, and scope of coverage, while notably excluding AI-generated designs, with which we welcome and agree.
The aim – a future-proof system that strengthens UK creativity and innovation in the digital era.
Helping David take on Goliath
However, David, mainly relying on unregistered design rights, is forever battling Goliath in copycat wars whose insidious players – behemoth retailers, national and global manufacturers, competitors and online perpetrators – romp away unchallenged because the legal system is costly and therefore inaccessible to those who need it most.
One doesn’t have to go too far back to remember PMS International vs Trunki (aka Magmatic) case, and the calamitous consequences of a Supreme Court judgment which many designers, and lawyers, questioned at the time. It centred on a technicality, which failed the design creator to the tune of £1million.
Design is the golden thread that weaves through the UK’s creative industries and permeates every aspect of daily life, shaping the products we use, the spaces we inhabit, and the experiences we cherish.
Nevertheless, it’s an unsung hero. The design economy is a powerful engine of innovation and growth, underpinning all seven pillars of the Industrial Strategy and driving national competitiveness.
At its core lies IP, a reflection of the imagination, skill, and ingenuity of British designers, which must be recognised, celebrated, and robustly protected as a source of enduring economic value, cultural influence, and global leadership.
Designers can take part in the Government’s consultation here.
ACID has a dedicated page about the consultation here. It is also running a workshop on October 22 – you can register to take part here.
Dids Macdonald is chairman and co-founder of Anti Copying in Design.