Introduction
The complexity of legal systems often poses significant challenges for those who must navigate them, particularly individuals and small entities lacking the resources or expertise to fully comprehend intricate legal frameworks. This essay examines the assertion that “the law is too complicated for the people who have to rely on it” by focusing on two specific areas of intellectual property law: copyright law as it pertains to individual authors and trade mark law in relation to small businesses. It argues that while the law serves critical protective purposes, its complexity often alienates and disadvantages those without legal training or substantial financial backing. Through an exploration of statutory provisions, case law, and academic commentary, this discussion highlights the barriers faced by individual authors in copyright disputes and small businesses in trade mark registration and enforcement. The essay ultimately suggests that while simplification is desirable, the inherent intricacies of intellectual property law often reflect the need to balance competing interests, albeit at the expense of accessibility.
Copyright Law and Individual Authors
Copyright law, designed to protect original creative works, is governed in the UK by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). While its purpose is to safeguard authors’ rights, the complexity of its provisions can be overwhelming for individual creators, such as writers, musicians, or visual artists, who often lack the resources to engage legal counsel. One primary issue is the difficulty in understanding the scope of protection, including what constitutes an “original” work—a concept that, while central to copyright law, remains subject to judicial interpretation and is often unclear without legal precedent (Bently and Sherman, 2014). For instance, individual authors may struggle to determine whether their work qualifies for protection under Section 1 of the CDPA or if it falls into a grey area of derivative content.
Moreover, the enforcement of copyright presents further complications. Pursuing an infringement claim typically involves navigating a costly and time-consuming legal process, which individual authors may find prohibitive. The case of Hyperion Records Ltd v Sawkins [2005] EWCA Civ 565 illustrates how nuanced questions—such as whether an edited version of an old musical composition constitutes a new copyrightable work—require detailed legal analysis beyond the grasp of most laypersons. Indeed, Sawkins, an individual editor, succeeded in asserting copyright, but only after significant legal proceedings that likely required expert representation (Bently and Sherman, 2014). This highlights a key problem: while the law theoretically protects individual authors, its practical application often demands resources inaccessible to them.
Additionally, the digital age has compounded these challenges. Issues such as online piracy and the use of creative works on platforms like YouTube introduce complex questions about fair use, licensing, and jurisdiction—areas where statutory guidance is often vague or outdated. As Cornish et al. (2019) argue, the rapid evolution of technology outpaces legislative updates, leaving individual authors ill-equipped to protect their rights in a digital landscape. Therefore, while copyright law aims to empower creators, its complexity arguably alienates the very individuals it intends to serve.
Trade Mark Law and Small Businesses
Similarly, trade mark law, which protects brand identity through the registration and enforcement of distinctive signs, presents significant challenges for small businesses. Governed in the UK by the Trade Marks Act 1994 and supplemented by EU regulations (prior to and post-Brexit via retained law), trade mark law is notoriously intricate, particularly in the registration process. Small businesses, often operating with limited budgets, frequently lack the expertise to navigate the procedural and substantive requirements for securing a trade mark. For example, determining whether a mark is sufficiently distinctive under Section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 involves a nuanced assessment that may elude non-specialists (Phillips, 2006).
The financial burden of trade mark disputes further exacerbates these difficulties. The cost of opposing or defending a trade mark application can be prohibitive for small enterprises. The case of Hotel Cipriani SRL v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 110 demonstrates how trade mark conflicts often hinge on complex arguments about likelihood of confusion and goodwill—issues that demand legal expertise and resources. Small businesses caught in such disputes risk significant financial loss, as Phillips (2006) notes, especially when larger corporations with deeper pockets exploit procedural intricacies to their advantage.
Furthermore, the international dimension of trade mark law adds another layer of complexity. Post-Brexit, small businesses must contend with dual systems of protection under UK and EU law, creating confusion over jurisdictional scope and registration requirements. As Gangjee (2016) highlights, many small business owners are unaware of the need to separately register their marks in both jurisdictions, leading to unintended lapses in protection. Consequently, trade mark law, though essential for brand protection, often appears inaccessible to small businesses due to its procedural and conceptual complexity.
Balancing Complexity with Accessibility
While the complexities of copyright and trade mark law present clear challenges for individual authors and small businesses, it is worth considering whether simplification is a viable solution. Arguably, the intricate nature of intellectual property law reflects the need to address diverse and often conflicting interests—such as protecting creators while promoting public access in copyright, or safeguarding brand identity while preventing monopolistic practices in trade marks. Simplifying the law risks diluting these protections or creating loopholes that could be exploited by larger, resource-rich entities (Cornish et al., 2019).
However, the current level of complexity often disproportionately disadvantages smaller players. Initiatives such as accessible legal education, government-funded advisory services, or streamlined online registration processes could mitigate some barriers. For instance, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) provides resources for small businesses and individuals, though these are often limited in scope and fail to address the nuances of litigation or digital challenges (Gangjee, 2016). Thus, while complete simplification may not be feasible, targeted reforms to enhance accessibility without compromising legal rigour are essential.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the assertion that “the law is too complicated for the people who have to rely on it” holds significant weight in the context of copyright law for individual authors and trade mark law for small businesses. The intricate provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Trade Marks Act 1994, coupled with the high costs and expertise required for enforcement, often render these legal frameworks inaccessible to those with limited resources. As demonstrated through case law and academic analysis, individual authors grapple with unclear definitions and digital challenges, while small businesses face procedural hurdles and financial constraints in securing and defending trade marks. Although the complexity of intellectual property law reflects a necessary balance of competing interests, its current structure disproportionately disadvantages smaller stakeholders. Future reforms should therefore focus on enhancing accessibility through education and support mechanisms, ensuring that the law serves not only as a protective tool but also as a practical and equitable resource for all who rely on it.
References
- Bently, L. and Sherman, B. (2014) Intellectual Property Law. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Cornish, W., Llewelyn, D. and Aplin, T. (2019) Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 9th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
- Gangjee, D. (2016) Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Phillips, J. (2006) Trade Mark Law: A Practical Anatomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
