Hong Kong: Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance Due For An Update

Last Updated: 22 February 2005
Article by Gabriela Kennedy and John Tai

The Copyright Ordinance in Hong Kong is under review again. In December 2004, the Hong Kong Government issued a consultation document seeking the views of the public in relation to, among other aspects, amendments to the end-user criminal liability and copyright exemption provisions in the Copyright Ordinance ("the Consultation Paper"). The consultation period ended on the 15th February 2005.

Advances in technology have made it increasingly easy to make copies of copyright works and to distribute such copies. Copyright owners have been lobbying for stronger and more effective protection of their rights under the Copyright Ordinance.

The Consultation Paper proposes changes that include a broadening and strengthening of the rights of copyright owners. Since such changes would have wide social implications, the Consultation Paper proposes a simultaneous broadening of the copyright exemptions under the Copyright Ordinance as a possible counter balance to the strengthening of the copyright owners' rights.

These and a number of other issues raised in the Consultation Paper exemplify the diverging interests of copyright owners and of copyright users. The public feedback will assist the Hong Kong Government in formulating proposals to make appropriate amendments to the Copyright Ordinance with the aim of striking a balance between the interests of copyright owners and those of users of copyright works.

End-user criminal liability revisited

One of the major areas under review is the scope of end-user criminal liability provisions. End-user criminal liability provisions were first introduced in the Copyright Ordinance in 2001 and initially covered all types of copyright works. The Intellectual Property (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 2000 provided that end-users who knowingly possess an infringing copy of a work for the purpose of or in the course of, or in connection with any trade or business, committed an offence.

The effect of the end user criminal liability provisions was quickly narrowed down to four categories of works, namely, computer programmes, movies, television dramas and musical recordings after the public and business communities raised practical concerns that they could inadvertently be caught by the newly introduced criminal provisions.

There were also concerns that it would be impractical or impossible for the public to obtain permission from all relevant copyright owners whenever they wished to make a copy of a work. As a result, the end-user criminal sanctions were suspended in relation to works that did not fall within the four categories of works for a period up to July 2006.

This situation resulted in an imbalance in the protection of different types of copyright works. The Consultation Paper contemplates varying degrees under which the scope of end-user criminal liability may be expanded so that all copyright works could be afforded the same level of protection.

In order to protect the public interest, the scope of criminal liability could be extended to cover those works whose owners could easily be identified and located by the public who would obtain their consent to copy or distribute such works.

Alternatively, the scope of end-user criminal liability might be expanded to cover works that are published in books, magazines or periodicals but would exclude promotional leaflets, pamphlets and posters. However, this would hardly alleviate the concern relating to the difficulty of locating copyright owners.

One suggestion favoured by a few industry groups is to have a centralised database where copyright works can be registered, coupled with a mechanism for the collection of copyright royalties. Criminal end-user liability would exist for works that have been registered in the centralised database, while civil remedies only would be available for works that have not been registered.

The counter-argument to the introduction of the centralised database is that the cost of maintaining such a database would be quite high.

Copyright exemptions

The Consultation Paper puts forward the possible overhaul of the permitted acts under the Copyright Ordinance. These are statutory defences to acts which otherwise would be regarded as infringements of copyright. An exhaustive list of permitted acts is offered in the Copyright Ordinance. These include use of copyright works for the purposes of research, private study, criticism, review or reporting current events.

One of the options put forward in the Consultation Paper is the introduction of a quantitative test for fair dealing in relation to research or private study purposes, which follows the model adopted in Australia and Singapore.

The argument in favour of the quantitative test is that it would bring certainty in deciding the scope of permitted acts (i.e what can or cannot be considered to amount to fair dealing). The quantitative test may not necessarily offer the ideal solution. If a user is allowed to copy 10% of a book, would the test be fair if that 10% were the most important part of the book or if the book consisted of 10 chapters of equal length each written by a different author? In such situations the application of the test would result in a substantial part of a work or the entire work of one author being copied.

In order for a quantitative test to work, detailed rules would need to be devised to cater for all types of situations and for different categories of copyright works.

Another option put forward in the Consultation Paper is of a non-exhaustive fair-dealing approach similar to the "fair-use" doctrine under the US copyright law. Such an approach would represent a u-turn compared to the current system of an exhaustive list of permitted acts. If such a system were adopted whether a certain use of a copyright work would be regarded as fair-dealing would be decided on a case by case basis taking into account four factors namely:

a) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

b) the nature of the copyright work

c) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyright work as a whole; or

d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for a value of the copyright work.

There are many problems associated with the whole-sale importation of an alien concept such as the concept of fair use, into Hong Kong legislation. They include the fact that the actual concept of "fair use" is not defined; US jurisprudence would not be of any use to Hong Kong Courts; a non-exhaustive approach cannot easily be reconciled with the 3-step test under the TRIPs Agreement which requires exceptions to i) be confined to special cases; ii) not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and iii) not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner.

The third option put forward in the Consultation Paper is the expansion of the list of permitted acts. Amongst the suggestions for new exemptions are: allowing the uploading of insubstantial parts of works to a school intranet for access within the school; allowing the showing and playing of broadcasts or cable programmes in hotel rooms and on public transport; as well as lifting certain restrictions regarding special formats of printed works for the visually impaired and the making of sub-titled TV broadcasts or cable programmes for people with a physical or mental disability.

While some of these new exemptions may not be controversial, the showing and playing of broadcasts or cable programmes is likely to be opposed by concerned industry groups.

End-user liability associated with parallel imported goods

The Copyright Ordinance contains a number of provisions imposing civil and criminal liability for the parallel importation of copyright works. The enactment of these provisions in 1997 caused heated debates amongst a number of groups including the government, members of the Copyright Bills Committee, copyright owners, consumer groups, industry groups and retailers.

Criminal liability for parallel imports in Hong Kong is confined to works that have been published for less than 18 months. To safeguard the position of retailers detailed defences were also introduced in 1997.

In July 2003 civil and criminal liabilities with respect to parallel imported copies of computer programs and other copyright works which are embodied in articles that contain computer programs, were removed. The rationale behind this amendment was to increase competition and the availability of products in the market and thus alleviate the problem of business end user software piracy.

The scope of liberalisation under the 2003 amendment excludes articles which contain computer programs and copyright works, the principal use of which is to be viewed or played as a movie, television drama, musical sound or visual recording, or as an e-book.

A further proposal was made in 2003 to remove civil and criminal liability for parallel imported copies of all copyright works, or for possessing such copies, for use in the course of a person's business. The 2003 proposal envisaged that dealing in parallel imported copies of works would continue to attract civil and criminal liability.

In the event, the 2003 proposal was abandoned and the issue of parallel imports has been re-opened in the Consultation Paper which now seeks views on i) whether criminal and civil liabilities in relation to parallel imported copyright works should be relaxed; ii) whether the 18-month period restriction in which criminal sanctions apply should be shortened and if so, for how long, and iii) finally the extent to which the liability should be relaxed.

As in the past, the liberalisation of parallel imports is likely to be resisted by the sound recording industry and the movie industry who stand to lose if cheaper, parallel imported copies of works become readily available.

Defence for employees against end-user criminal liability

Another area under review in the Consultation Paper is whether a specific defence should be made available to employees who are found in possession of infringing software provided by their employers for use in the course of their employment.

This proposal was made in apparent response to public concerns that employees might be criminally liable if they use infringing software provided by their employers. Practical experience has however shown that it is the employer rather than the employee who is prosecuted for infringement.

One argument against the introduction of such a defence is that a specific employee defence would only make it harder for copyright owners to take enforcement action and would provide infringers with a new defence.

The introduction of a specific defence for employees is likely to be resisted by the software industry which lobbied hard for the introduction of end-user liability in the first place.

Proof of infringing copies of computer programs in end-user piracy cases

Another issue which affects the computer industry relates to the proof of infringing copies of computer programs when infringements come before the courts. The view expressed by the computer industry is that copyright owners have experienced difficulties in enforcing their rights as it is hard to prove whether a computer program installed in a computer is an infringing copy in the absence of any legal requirement for businesses to retain records to show that they are legitimate copies.

The Consultation Paper suggested a number of possible options. A relatively quick and cheap approach would be to require businesses to keep records of all licensed computer programs. It will then be up to the Court to decide in end-user piracy proceedings whether such records are sufficient to show that the computer program is not an infringing copy.

Other options put forward include shifting the burden of proof on defendants. The effect of this would be that a computer program without a licence would be presumed to be infringing unless the defendant could prove the contrary.

A third option suggested is to defer the introduction of provisions in legislation to address this issue until more enforcement experience becomes available. This option comes with the suggestion that the software industry should adopt technological measures into computer programs and require registration to facilitate the proof of infringing copies. This suggestion has been rejected by the software industry as unworkable. The industry is likely to lobby for the first option.

Circumvention of technological measures for copyright protection

The Consultation Paper also examines the introduction of criminal sanctions for acts of circumvention of copyright protection measures, expanding such protection to cover access control measures and introducing civil and criminal liability for acts of circumvention.

The video gaming industry's view is that stronger measures are needed to curb the rampant piracy problems associated with acts of circumvention of copyright protection devices and measures in Hong Kong.

Video gaming consoles whose copy protection measures have been circumvented with the aid of mod chips are readily available at many computer centres around Hong Kong. Although the Copyright Ordinance provides civil remedies against such acts, enforcement actions have proved to be difficult, slow and costly.

It is argued that criminal sanctions would have a stronger deterrent effect on infringers and would enable copyright owners to take swifter and more cost efficient enforcement actions against mod-chippers.

Rental rights & WIPO Internet treaties

Finally, the Consultation Paper seeks views on whether rental rights for copyright owners of films including musical visual recordings should be provided under the Copyright Ordinance and whether the legislation in Hong Kong should be harmonised with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("the WIPO Internet Treaties") and thus bring Hong Kong in line with international developments.

It is not clear why rental rights for films were not introduced in 1997 at the time of the passing of the Copyright Ordinance, as Hong Kong could hardly have been said then to fall under the exception provided by Article 11 of the TRIPs Agreement. Article 11 allows Members not to introduce a rental right unless there is evidence of widespread copying of works which is materially impairing the exclusive right of reproduction conferred on authors and their successors in title.

It will be up to the movie industry to persuade the government that Hong Kong does not fall within this exception.

As far as the adoption of the WIPO Internet Treaties is concerned, although Hong Kong has no international legal obligation to implement them, some provisions from the WIPO Internet Treaties were incorporated in the Copyright Ordinance in 1997. The Consultation Paper proposes the adoption of further provisions from the WIPO Internet Treaties. Although it is argued that this would bring Hong Kong in line with international developments, this can hardly be so as the WIPO Internet Treaties were passed in 1996 and since then many countries have adopted more sophisticated and detailed legislation to deal with digital rights and the protection of copyright works on the Internet.


The Consultation paper proposes an ambitious agenda of changes to the Copyright Ordinance which will no doubt give rise to many debates between copyright owners and users of copyright works.

The high profile arrest by the Hong Kong Customs & Excise Department of a Hong Kong man in January 2005 for illegally downloading and uploading films to the Internet using BitTorrent technology and the lack of any formal charges against the infringer weeks later, highlights inadequacies in the Copyright Ordinance in dealing with file-sharing and new technologies which enable such activities. The time has perhaps come for Hong Kong to put digital rights on its agenda and deal with them in a less piece-meal and more systematic fashion.

© Gabriela Kennedy and John Tai

For further information in relation to this article, please contact either author at gabriela.kennedy@lovells.com or john.tai@lovells.com

The authors are partner and solicitor respectively practising in the Intellectual Property group of Lovells in Hong Kong.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions