Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988): the main source of UK copyright law, making provision for the operation of copyright and the protection of how ideas are expressed in a permanent form.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It contains closed legislative proposals, published judgments and closed consultations from 2017–2021 that are no longer featured in the current tracker because they are not from the current year. To track the progress of current legislative proposals, relevant judgments and consultations related to copyright and databases, see Practice Notes: Copyright and databases tracker—UK and Copyright and databases tracker—EU. To track the progress of current legislative proposals, relevant judgments and consultations related to media and digital issues, see Practice Notes: Media, digital and telecoms tracker—UK and Media, digital and telecoms tracker—EU [Archived]. For archived content relating to copyright and databases in the UK from 2022, see Practice Note: Copyright and databases tracker—UK 2022–2024 [Archived]. Copyright—legislation For current legislation relating to copyright and databases, see Practice Notes: Copyright and databases tracker—UK—Legislation, consultations, guidance and reports and Copyright and databases tracker—EU—Legislation, consultations, guidance and reports. For current legislation relating to media and digital issues, see Practice Notes: Media, digital and telecoms tracker—UK—Media,

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) defines the author of a work as the person who created it. The author as creator is not always the owner of a work, although it is usually the case that they are the first owner of copyright unless employed, in which case the employer is (see below). The identity of the author of a work is relevant to many areas of copyright law. For example, the copyright term is usually measured by reference to the author’s life; an author can claim moral rights; and copyright may not even subsist unless the author has the necessary qualifying status for protection. It is also important to identify the owner of the copyright work, for example title and ownership should be established before purchasing or taking a licence of a work. Ownership is also important in cases of infringement, as only the copyright owner (or the exclusive licensee) can bring an action against alleged infringers. Authorship Authorship in primary and secondary

Defending a claim of copyright infringement A defendant in copyright infringement proceedings will usually begin their defence by attacking the claimant’s copyright, either by arguing that no copyright subsists in the claimed work, or that the claimant is not the owner of any copyright that does subsist (or both). Next, the defendant is likely to claim that, even if copyright subsists, there has been no infringement. This will involve arguments that the claimed work and the allegedly infringing material is not sufficiently similar, or presenting evidence to support a claim that the allegedly infringing work was independently created, ie that no actual copying took place. Finally, there are a number of specific exceptions to copyright infringement, the majority of which are laid down by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988). These are known as permitted acts. The permitted acts which apply to copyright are numerous, with many also applying to protected rights in databases. If other causes of action apply, such as a claim for breach

Categorisation Copyright provides the owner with the exclusive right to do, and authorise others to do, certain acts in relation to eligible works. Copyright works have been formally categorised in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) providing clarity about the various categories, but since then, the lines separating the categories have become blurred, in part due to the digital revolution and the greater complexity of creative output. This has led to a level ambiguity if the categories of work listed in CDPA 1988 are an exhaustive list, outside of which copyright protection is unavailable, or if copyright can subsist in a work that is not listed in CDPA 1988. The categories of work are set out in CDPA 1988, s 1(1): • original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works • sound recordings, films or broadcasts, and • typographical arrangements of published editions Previous UK case law found that a piece created that does not fit into the categories above would not be eligible for copyright

Whereas primary infringement requires in most instances the act of reproduction, secondary infringement is about dealing commercially in infringing copyright works. Acts of secondary infringement Secondary infringing acts are those of importing, possessing, selling or dealing, providing the means for making copies, permitting the use of premises for an infringing performance and supplying apparatus for an infringing performance. Secondary acts deal with those further down the ‘chain’. Unlike primary infringers, who are strictly liable regardless of their state of knowledge, secondary infringers must have had knowledge of infringement. Copyright owners can seek assistance to prevent importation of infringing copies by writing to HMRC. If infringement proceedings are contemplated, a claimant should write to the potential defendant, put them on notice and give them time to evaluate the claims made against them. Those in the frame for infringement will bear scrutiny of their evidence adduced on independent effort and creativity at the disclosure stage of the court action. There is no statutory provision that would restrain threats of copyright infringement being made but practitioners should beware bundling claims with other

What formalities are required for copyright protection? Copyright recognises the value in the intellectual creation of an author when a creative work is produced. The law is set out mainly in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), which came into force on 1 August 1989. For works created before 1 August 1989, the earlier Copyright Acts of 1911 or 1956 should be examined. Copyright is not a registered right, it automatically subsists once the work has been created and the qualifying circumstances have been met. This often means that subsistence of the right is often not examined in detail until the owner wants to license or assign it or use it as a cause of action when issuing proceedings, eg for infringement. For a creative work to be eligible for copyright protections, certain criteria must be met in respect of the work itself, and in respect of its author and its publication. Copyright subsistence is dependent on the nature of the work and the circumstances

This Practice Note provides a broad overview of how copyright can be enforced cross-border. An international system of copyright enforcement Copyright is a territorial IP right in that it protects a work in one jurisdiction only. As far back as the 1800s, this was recognised as a problem for copyright owners. At that time, it was becoming easier for a work to be copied in a foreign country but there was nothing that the copyright owner could do about it as their copyright was recognised only in their home country and had no validity in any foreign state. There were calls for an international system of copyright to be developed. An international system of copyright enforcement exists, established by four conventions. At the heart of the system is the principle of national treatment. This means that a copyright owner will be treated as if they are a national of the territory in which the infringement is taking place and can claim the protection of copyright laws there. Copyright owners wanting to use this international system

The Coram Children's Legal Centre has expressed approval for the government's decision to repeal child detention powers in the newly published Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. This legislation reverses key provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, including the power to detain children indefinitely and the Home Office's authority to accommodate unaccompanied children outside the normal care system. The Bill also repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 and several other contentious measures. However, concerns remain regarding the criminalisation of vulnerable individuals, including children and trafficking victims, particularly in relation to unauthorised entry offences. The Centre also highlights ongoing issues with the weakened modern slavery regime and the retention of the 'inadmissibility' concept in asylum claims processing.

Coram Family and Childcare has published its 2026 survey which reveals that the September 2025 expansion of working parent entitlements to 30 hours per week has created a two-tier childcare system in England. Eligible working families now have access to essentially free part-time care during term time, whereas ineligible families pay an average of £189 per week for childcare for under-two’s. Over a 25-year period, costs increased from £55 per week in 2001 to £160 in 2024, prior to the entitlement expansion. In response, the Local Government Association (LGA) has called for reviews of entitlement eligibility to ensure that lower-income families are not excluded. The LGA has also recommended extending these entitlements to parents in education, training, and to foster carers.

Coram Family and Childcare has published a report warning that disadvantaged children are at risk of missing out on early education under the newly expanded 30-hour childcare entitlement, which entered its final phase on 1 September 2025. The entitlement is only available to children of working parents who meet income thresholds, excluding children whose parents are in education or training, have disabilities, or are migrants with no recourse to public funds. The report shows that these families must pay up to £205 per week to access equivalent nursery hours, with costs rising to £274 in Inner London. Coram is calling for urgent reform to extend entitlements to excluded groups and ultimately remove work-based eligibility, replacing it with a universal, means-tested system to ensure equal access for all children.

The Coram Institute for Children has published a report based on 27,000 responses from Bright Spots surveys conducted across more than 70 local authorities between 2015–24. The analysis shows that one in three care leavers experience low well-being, rising to nearly half among those with a long-term health condition or disability. Care leavers consistently report lower life satisfaction, happiness and sense of purpose than both children in care and their peers in the general population, with rates of low well-being increasing from 29–32% over the last decade. Although most children in care say their lives are improving, well-being declines with age and drops sharply after leaving care. Young people describe losing supportive relationships at the point of transition, contributing to loneliness, reduced emotional support from Personal Advisers and increasing feelings of being unsafe, with a third of care leavers not always feeling safe at home.