ACID Celebrates World IP Day by Launching Commission it Don’t Copy it Campaign!
Equality of Rights for Designers – History
1996 ACID was launched in 1996 because CEO Dids Macdonald’s design-led products were consistently plagiarised, often by UK design buyers. She, like many thousands of others, nearly lost her business through design theft. ACID now represents over 1000+ companies within the creative industries with a collective turnover of £3 billion. The majority of ACID members are micro business. However, many corporate members and household names within design also support the organisation’s aims and objectives.
2002 Design4Change was formed to campaign for IP reform in design to achieve legislative, morale, commercial and educational objectives on behalf its members and the broader design sector. Design was rarely acknowledged as a legitimate IP right in what was then a “patent” led era in intellectual property policy.
2002 DESIGN4CHANGE made representations to the then Minister of Trade & Industry setting out the plight of micro firms and SME’s and the difficulty in enforcing their rights against infringement in what was usually a David & Goliath situation. Government responded saying that the then current system of IP was fit for purpose for SME’s. Government did not recognise an inequality of rights for designers. 2002-4 members wrote to their MPs.
2004 ACID LOBBY was formalised and began campaigning for parity of rights for designers (including moral rights), the introduction of exemplary damages, unlawful imitation to address the issue of Unfair Competition in the UK, the introduction of a small claims IP court for SME’s (now a Government objective), the introduction of a dedicated IP Minister (now achieved), recognition that Design = Value for the UK economy (now achieved through Government Recommendation 7 in the Hargreaves Review of IP – in 2010 UK Businesses spent £33 billion on design = 2.4% of UK’s GDP). ACID also launched an ongoing “Educate to Protect” campaign to raise awareness on practical tools of self-help for SME’s to encourage proactive IP strategies to deter and prevent infringement. (In March 2012 Government have introduced a plan to raise awareness of education in IP for SME’s). Design Week became the first trade publication to support our campaigns.
2004 ACID LOBBY met with Government to present forward 6 case studies to demonstrate the anomaly of lack of parity of rights for designers. Government said the ACID cases had “merit” but further evidence would be needed.
2004-6 ACID continued to meet on a regular basis with Government officials to demonstrate the difficulties faced by designers and the broader IP community to address what appeared to be blatant infringement of design-led products and to provide further evidence to demonstrate the anomaly and unfairness between copyright and design right. Why should an artist or song writer have over 50 year’s protection and a designer is lucky enough if they have 5?
2007 ACID responded to the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property but design issues were sidelined. Out of 1384 references to other areas of intellectual property, design and design right was referenced only 19 times and 11 of these were in the indices. ACID was commended for its Educate to Protect initiative. The otherwise excellent Cox report on Innovation looked to Gowers to make recommendations on IP issues in design and innovation but these were not addressed.
2007-8 Post-Gowers, ACID continued to raise awareness about the omission and lack of policy in design. Gowers recommended the setting up of SABIP (The Strategic Advisory Board on Intellectual Property) who set about establishing IP priorities with research studies. Out of the 150 selected, there was no research either in place or commissioned to address SME and design issues. Following this in 2010 an SME study took place which confirmed that SME’s find it difficult to enforce their rights and that there was a lack of IP education and awareness.
2009 ACID launched 2 No 10 Government Petitions to address equal rights for designers and the lack of exemplary damages. Over 1000 signatures (pre -social media) were obtained. Government responded saying that in their opinion the majority of infringements of unregistered design were inadvertent and not blatant. ACID’s evidence told a different story. ACID carried out its own survey, 89% of whom said copying was deliberate and blatant.
2008-10 ACID’s campaign for design reform gathered momentum with a total of 23 trade publications publicly supporting our aims and objectives including equality of rights for designers. ACID continued to meet with Government officials. The IPO appointed a Chief Economist and ACID wrote an open letter asking for design issues to be recognised and acknowledged. The value of design in the UK has now been publicly acknowledged.
2011 The Hargreaves Report on Intellectual Property was commissioned by the Prime Minister. ACID’s submission was one of the very few which dealt with design issues, the main representations covered copyright issues. ACID’s submission was accompanied by many micro and SME case studies. This reinforced the message, according to Professor Hargreaves, that IP policy in design had been neglected. According to one Hargreaves rapporteur, ACID’s submission influenced the decision to ensure that design was one of Government’s 10 recommendations for IP reform. Following which there have been 4 sets of research on the relationship between design and innovation and further research has been commissioned.
2011 Calls for Evidence were then announced and ACID demonstrated again the problems faced by designers about the anomaly between copyright and design right. Many more case studies were submitted as evidence to support the argument to address this issue. The IPO then published a set of recommendations for further research amongst which was the subject of the disparity between copyright and design right.
2011/12 ACID is in continued and very positive talks with Government and an Impact Assessment has now been completed. The next stage is for a full Government Consultation into equality of rights for designers and other issues. The next stage is to meet with the Minister of Justice. ACID, through its membership of the Alliance of IP Theft, has secured this campaign as a key objective in Alliance legislative priorities and maintain its position n Government radar. ACID’s Chief Legal Counsel, Nick Kounoupias of ACID Accredited law firm DMH Stallard has submitted the legal case for parity of rights and has been a tireless supporter to reinforce the campaign objective from the basis of robust legal argument.
The fight is not yet won but ACID would like to thank all its supporters, media supporters, trade association partners and members for their support. We also welcome and support Elle Decoration’s Fight the Fakes campaign in support of equal rights for designers. Elle Decoration have also endorsed and publicly supported ACID’s Commission it, Don’t Copy it” campaign to be launched on World Intellectual Property Day. They are to be congratulated as UK pioneers and the first consumer publication to champion IP reform. It is hoped that other consumer magazines will join the forces with ACID to ensure that the UK’s designers are given the proper support they deserve and that, ultimately, consumers will recognise the important role that designers and original design play in this country. The UK is ranked 4th in the world for its design capability and UK design spend is £33 billion and one of the few growth sectors at 4% per annum. In the US, President Obama refers to intellectual property as the US’s single most important asset, publicised on every trade mission, The US has an IP Tsar championing IP on a global level at every opportunity.
Is Government doing all it can for IP?
Anti Copying in Design (ACID) welcomes the All Party Parliamentary IP Group’s announcement of a new enquiry into the role of Government in protecting and promoting intellectual property
Responsibility for development/enforcement of IP policy stradles many Government departments/agencies and despite numerous reviews into IP policy in the past ten years, the decision-making framework within which policy is developed and agreed has not been sufficiently examined. The APPG for IP will examine the plethora of cross-departmental responsibilities engaged in formulating IP policy, asking whether it works and whether the machinery of government can be improved for better policy formulation.
Chaired by John Whittingdale, MP., leading an IP focused and informed group of cross party MPs and Lords, the enquiry intends to look at a range of issues including:
• The purpose and goal of IP policy
• Where and how IP policy is developed in Government
• How IP policy has developed and been coordinated within the digital policy environment
• How the Government interacts and coordinates IP policy at an international level
• How policy impacting the protection of IP is coordinated across departments
ACID CEO Dids Macdonald, commenting on the announcement said, “At last IP is bubbling on main stream Government radar, about time! A good result for the many pioneers who have tirelessly raised the importance of IP to the UK over the years. Let’s hope that this is a sensible, practical approach to ensure that the needs of IP owners and users are effectively considered, fairly by sound Government policy. The willingness of this All Party Parliamentary IP Group to examine how the UK promotes the protection of IP rights and to fully understand how IP Policy matches commercial demands should provide a welcome and informed neutral conduit to influence Government thinking post Hargreaves. It sets off to a good start by limiting responses to 4 pages!”
Organisations wishing to submit evidence (max 4 pages) should email Alliance@luther.co.uk by 30th March. Information regarding evidence sessions will be published on the APPG website at when they have been scheduled. The evidence sessions will be open to the public.
A full list of the members of the All-Party Intellectual Property Group can be found on their website
The review of Intellectual Property and Growth, led by Professor Ian Hargreaves, was tasked with examining how the UK’s intellectual property framework can further promote entrepreneurialism, economic growth and social and commercial innovation. ACID is a membership organisation assisting its members in the protection of their IP. ACID champions design law improvements through ACID LOBBY and the Alliance Against IP Theft.
Contact Dids Macdonald didsm@acid.uk.com or call 0845 644 3617
ACID are also members of the Alliance Against IP Theft
The Alliance Against IP Theft Summer Newsletter
The Alliance Against IP Theft have released the Summer IP Update.
Download PDF Newsletter
ACID’s RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S REVIEW OF UK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP)
Anti Copying in Design’s recent IP poll indicates that 89.7% of designers believe IP infringement to be deliberate and blatant.
ACID welcomes the opportunity of the UK Review into Intellectual Property and Growth to raise awareness about, in particular, the difficulties which affect the UK’s designers and the uncertainty experienced by micro firms and SME’s in effectively enforcing IP infringement. We hope that the IP Review team will consider the following key points and recommendations based on evidence/case studies supporting the ACID submission.
- ACID would like to see evidence of design and design issues as a key feature in future UK Intellectual property policy and included in the UK’s IP Crime and Growth strategies.
- Many micro firms and SME’s are the pioneers of innovation; they are leaders not followers and the true champions of the UK economy. The IP framework does not lead innovation and growth, however, it does provide the legal vehicle and platform with which to protect, register and commercialise tradable IP. An effective IP framework should focus on all the above and provide a tangible focus on resolving infringement uncertainty, providing an IP seed bed for investment and investor visibility to those who can successfully translate tradable knowledge and ideas into commercial reality
- ACID believes that there should be provision of hands-on, practical, sector-led IP advice and information for micro firms and SME’s to help them maximise, protect and commercialise their IP
- ACID has presented an arguable case to bring unregistered design right in line with copyright. Current UKIPO policy is that design infringement may be inadvertent but, to date, have provided little or no evidence to support this.
- ACID supports the view held by many others that the UK has no dedicated law of unfair competition which currently provides little confidence (especially for micro firms and SME’s) against copying and the deliberate sale of lookalikes
- 89.7% of designers surveyed in a recent micro “IP scoop” believe IP infringement is blatant.
- If unregistered design right infringement was on a par with copyright infringement, design stakeholders could take part in positive discussions on the UK’s Crime strategy.
- The majority of the UK’s SME IP creators rely on unregistered rights and IP Protection generally for designers needs to be at a sufficiently high level to stimulate innovation and growth
- There is a need to improve awareness and understanding of the potential of design among policy makers and design customers in the UK and globally
- There is clear evidence of the “dog that didn’t or couldn’t bark” in the cost and complexity of enforcing IP rights in the UK and internationally for micro firms and SME’s
- Mediation has a key role to play in IP disputes
- We support many IP stakeholders who believe there is a need for a further review of the system of damages to dissuade the protagonists
- Easier access should be available to user-friendly sector led services to help SME’s protect and exploit their IP The current tried and tested IP framework for copyright should not be changed to suit current political and commercial aspirations which protect certain industries over others.
- Bona fide businesses need to have robust support to deter and challenge the damage done by illegal businesses and services
- The weight of arguments from the majority of IP lobbying stakeholders in music, film and media are foreign owned with UK subsidiaries and/or offices. The majority of designers and ACID members are UK based and owned.
- 2010/2011 has seen a marked increase in copying incidents at UK exhibitions/trade fairs and it is time for the exhibition industry to be made more accountable. At best, the Government should be looking at invoking some statutory powers to control matters. A minimum recommendation should be a commitment by exhibition organizers to remove products from sale where rights ownership can be confirmed by a stand owner and an infringing product is being unlawfully marketed.
- ACID questions whether future IP policy would not be better served in BIS with its own Minister of State. This would put IP on a more influential radar within Government ensuring that future IP policy would be created from a broader influence. This would ensure that future policy recognises the all the commercial needs of UK innovation to maximise growth potential.
- Further consideration should be given to the US initiative of appointing a national IP Tsar in the form of an Intellectual Property Coordinator. By placing IP as a top priority as the “US’s single most important asset”, The President of the United States has put emphasis on an IP framework which will not only provide a robust legal framework but will also concentrate on advancing and delivering growth, jobs and revenue by bringing together all IP stakeholders together as an all encompassing IP model.
ACID has submitted several case studies which demonstrate the difficulties faced by micro firms in affording the time and money to enforce IP infringement, many of whom simply go out of business because they cannot fight their corner. The case studies also highlight the vulnerability of SME’s who respond to tenders/pitches only to find that either their products are given to a third party to produce more cheaply or their work is stolen and changed sufficiently so that it is difficult and costly to legally challenge. Government could lead on this within its own procurement terms and conditions by encouraging respect for IP at the tender/pitch stage as an industry standard.
A couple of the case studies demonstrate the current culture of some major high street retailers who follow SME innovators, select products which have a proven market success and then copy them. They are then sent out to China to manufacture cheaply and brought back to flood the market. There is no level playing field in micro v macro legal challenges and current practice is to stonewall challenge and perpetuate litigation.
Further case studies highlight issues at the exhibition/trade fairs where, unlike EU counterparts, UK exhibition organisers do not take a tough stance on copying. A trade fair is usually the first point of market entry for new, innovative products and whilst it is a valuable platform it is also vulnerable to copyists. The UK Exhibition industry is worth £9.3 billion. Among other issues faced by micro firms is the difficulty to protect, register and enforce their IP rights in BRIC countries; the difficulties in accessing sector specific IP training and education and up to 89.7% also believe that IP infringement in the UK is blatant.
Other issues faced by SME’s is the increasing occurrence of walking off with entire businesses and creating copycat trading companies using every aspect of the original brand owners identity, including its look and feel, text, brand voice and communication platform.
ACID LOBBY INFORMATION
The creative industries have grown twice as fast as the rest of the economy in recent years and account for 7% of GDP; an integral measure of economic activity in the UK. According to the Design Council, design intensive companies outperformed the FTSE 100 by 200% over a ten-year period – there is every indication that this growth will continue. Every single aspect of the creative economy is underpinned by intellectual property, intellectual capital, know how and ideas – it is the lifeblood running through the veins of the future prosperity of a Creative Britain. In order to make it easier for creative people to build on their success it will be equally important to raise awareness about the protection, exploitation and commercialisation of IP. If we are entering what is said to be the most challenging economic period this century has experienced there will be many who will seek the fast track to market through IP theft.
ACID Lobby core objectives (view Word document)
Introduction of a new law of unlawful imitation (view Word document) – the case for.. 1) 2) Addressing the disparity between copyright owners and design right owners (view Word document)
Supporting a move to see “groundless threats” removed
Government promotion of mediation as a real alternative to IP litigation – A National Mediation Scheme
Educate to Protect - National IP education for SME’s. ACID has submitted a bid to the DCMS in response to Commitment 17 of the Creative Economy Programme (CEP) ”We will promote better under standing of the value and importance of Intellectual Property”
Raising awareness regarding IP Crime at grass roots and at strategic levels.
ACID is proud to be an associate member of the Alliance Against IP Theft Providing a single voice for those who share an interest in preventing intellectual property theft in the UK. ACID is also a member of IPAN (Intellectual Property Awareness Network) the Innovations Support Network and the Parliamentary Group for Design and Innovation ACID is part of the UK IPO CREATE group (view Word document)
Recognition of “design right” in IPRs and included in UK IP Crime strategy!
Declared Corporate Responsibility to IP
Increase in exemplary damages (view Word document)
ACID welcomes all support for its initiatives to raise intellectual property awareness in the UK and improve legislation to allow designers to fully exploit and capitalise their creative talent.
Good design, recognised as a market differentiator, doesn’t happen by chance. It takes years to create a brand with a pedigree of creative excellence not only to lead on visual elements but on essential ingredients/components such as quality engineering, high specification raw materials, health, safety and environmental compliance and skilled craftsmanship. Talent alone will not be the route to design success, a huge investment is necessary to develop top quality designs and products to obtain and maintain a place as a market leader and innovator. Design leaders need and demand to maintain their market position without being threatened by look alikes and copies.
Copyright the Future consultation – view ACID’s submission document
Nick Kounoupias from ACID Accredited law firm DMHStallard has been appointed as Chief legal counsel advising ACID on lobbying issues including the latest copyright consultation.