Introduction
Technological advancements have revolutionized information communication and other industrial activities in Qatar. The invention of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) was significant for collecting aerial data, which is crucial for mapping and surveying activities. As one of the most reputable UAV manufacturing companies, Britannia Drones has developed cutting-edge technology for its devices.
The technology features a voice-activation system that ensures operational safety. Additionally, it has automated the UAV to record all its movements, storing this information in the cloud and later using it without the owners’ consent. This legal analysis paper evaluates the possible intellectual property rights infringed upon by the company and possible actions to be taken.
Meaning of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
The use of drones has become increasingly important across sectors such as aviation, medicine, and surveying. Autonomous drones, also known as UAVs, are among the hallmark technologies in drone manufacturing. UAVs are aircraft operated without human intervention and primarily manufactured for military operations. Moreover, the need to collect geographical information from the air has become increasingly in demand. Consequently, the use of UAVs expanded to non-military operations. Precision agriculture, aerial photography, policing, and surveillance, among other activities, depend on UAVs. Therefore, UAV applications are multifaceted, affecting various human interactive activities.
Intellectual Property Rights and UAV
While UAVs play various roles in the military and private sector, their use is associated with intellectual property rights protection. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, intellectual property is any commercially valuable product of human intellect. The product exists in abstract forms, including copyrights, protectable trademarks, patentable inventions, or any trade secrets. The use of UAVs can be considered intellectual property from two dimensions. The technology used to develop and improve the UAVs is the work of human intellect. Consequently, such intellect needs to be protected from exploitation without the original owner’s consent.
The use of UAVs in itself has some intellectual property aspects that ought to be protected. For instance, individuals who own and control the devices may have their data and information accessed. Some UAVs are used to collect geographical information that can be used to develop aerial maps and other survey materials.
From this perspective, the owners of UAVs and controllers can legally claim copyright over the data and information collected and stored. Another legal aspect of drone use is the potential infringement of a person’s privacy rights, as drones may collect private data. Therefore, companies such as Britannia Drones must consider all the legal aspects in the production and use of their UAVs.
Britannia Drones Case
Facts Brief
Britannia Drones is one of the tech companies that manufactures drones, including UAVs. In line with its products, the organization has developed a unique technology utilizing UAVs. The invented technology uses activated voice commands to direct the movement of UAVs in the air.
Therefore, through technology, any risk in aviation or on the ground is avoided. Moreover, the invention equips UAVs with the capability to record sounds and images throughout the flight. Britannia Drones sells sound and voice recordings for mapping and survey work without obtaining consent from the UAV operators or owners. Consequently, the commercialization of the recordings has presented legal issues that require attention.
Legal Issues and Their Significances
Various legal issues arise from the given case scenario involving Britannia Drones and its UAV technology. The company serves a diverse range of clients, including both public and private individuals. While its advanced technology is crucial to the use of UAVs, there are different aspects of intellectual property rights.
Firstly, it is essential to determine whether sound and visual recordings made by UAVs are intellectual property. To determine this issue, the legal meaning of intellectual property must be applied. Additionally, a concise examination of the specific aspects of the recordings that make them intellectual properties should be considered.
Secondly, the issue of whether Britannia Drones owns the rights to commercialize the visual and sound recordings must be determined. Ownership of intellectual property rights varies depending on the applicable law and the product in question. Determining who owns the rights to the recordings will help understand the legality of commercializing them without the UAV owners’ or controllers’ consent. Therefore, it will be easy to know the possible course of action that the UAV owners can take and how Britannia Drones will defend itself in such circumstances.
Thirdly, it will be crucial to determine whether the technology infringes upon the privacy rights of UAV owners and controllers. While Britannia has developed the technology, it is upon the UAV owners and controllers to determine where it will be used. In some cases, devices are used in a private capacity, and recordings may capture information that the owners do not wish to be shared. An in-depth analysis of UAV use and privacy rights will help clarify the possible actions that Britannia can take to ensure that individual users’ privacy is not compromised. The three legal issues must be determined to allow Britannia Drones to benefit from its technology without violating any international or Qatari intellectual property laws.
Applicable Laws and Regulations
International Laws
The State of Qatar is a signatory to various international instruments regarding intellectual property rights. Given the globalization of many businesses in the country, including Britannia Drones, international instruments apply to some extent. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) is one of the international treaties in force in Qatar. Since the country is a signatory to TRIPS, its provisions on intellectual property, such as third-party legitimate interests and the nature of computer programs, are applicable.
Another operative international instrument is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The convention grants automatic copyright protection to any literary work authored or created outside a member state.
Another applicable international law to the provided case scenario is the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty. Unlike other instruments, the WIPO treaty addresses copyright issues in the context of advanced technological developments. The treaty expands on the treatment of computer programs as literary works while prohibiting the circumvention of technological measures.
Therefore, the programming that enables UAVs to automatically record visuals and sounds in the air falls under the WIPO treaty. The Rome Convention is also applicable in the Qatari jurisdiction. While Qatar is a party to many international instruments, they complement each other.
National Laws
At the national level, Qatar has formulated Law No. 7 of 2002 on the Protection of Copyrights and Neighboring Rights to regulate intellectual property rights. The law is based on the provisions outlined in Articles 23, 34, and 51 of the Qatari Constitution. Specifically, Article 2 of Law No. 7 of 2002 protects literary works and software applications. The national laws on intellectual property supplement the international treaties to which Qatar is a party. Britannia Drones needs to consider the various national and international intellectual property laws that apply to its situation.
Issues Determination and Analysis
Intellectual Property Nature of Visuals and Sound Recordings
Intellectual property is intangible creations of human intellect and must possess certain characteristics to be protected. Ownership of intellectual property follows the legal principle that economic resources are subject to legal ownership. As a recent signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all persons residing in Qatar are entitled to equal protection under the law, as stipulated in Article 26 of the Covenant. While distinguishing intellectual property from other types can be challenging, national and international legal frameworks have defined what constitutes intellectual property.
The qualification of something as intellectual property depends on the rights being sought. The most obvious qualification is that it must be something created by humans. In this case, the audio and visual recordings are made using creative, innovative technology that Britannia Drones, as a company, has developed.
Therefore, the audio and visual recordings qualify as intellectual property. Sir John Salmond defined a right as “an interest recognized and protected by a rule of justice”. In the context of intellectual property, the law seeks to protect legally exclusive rights, not the property itself.
Audio and visual recordings are considered literary works according to Law No. 7 of 2002 on the Protection of Copyrights and Related Rights. In particular, Article 2 of the law, under Sub-articles 6 and 7, recognizes audiovisual and photographic works as properties with legally exclusive rights. Similarly, the law describes sound recordings as an exclusively oral fixation, regardless of the method used to make them. In the Britannia Drones case, the visuals and sound recordings were made through the UAVs’ self-automation, a method not prohibited under Law No. 7 of 2002. Additionally, the 1967 WIPO convention recognizes sound and visual recordings as literary works whose producers’ legal interests must be protected.
To fully qualify the recordings as properties deserving legal protection, their purpose must be examined. The national and international legal framework for intellectual property has established various exceptions regarding the use and purpose of intellectual property. The technology invented by Britannia Drones was meant explicitly for commercial purposes. Consequently, it passes the test of educational and scientific uses, which are exempted.
However, it is worth noting that where the company sells drones for military or other intelligence uses, it may be limited to owning the sound and visual recordings. Therefore, the UAVs’ recordings, both sound and visual, have exclusive legal rights protected under intellectual property law.
Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights
While it has been established that the UAV recordings have exclusive legal rights, the ownership of the recordings can be contested. Britannia Drones, users, and controllers of the UAVs may be the possible owners of a legal interest in the recordings. However, the qualifications for ownership and the claim to legal rights can be multidimensional and are to be interpreted only as provided by law. The neighboring rights, as outlined in Law No. 7 of 2002, protect the rights and legal interests of persons and entities that contribute to the creation of literary works. Producers of sound recordings are some of the protected persons under the law.
Although Qatar has no specific legislation that defines UAV recordings as intellectual property, the courts may be persuaded by the position in other jurisdictions. For instance, in India, drone recordings are considered similar to those taken by standard cameras. Therefore, the actual owners of the drones’ recordings are those who invested their intellect and effort in ensuring that the recordings were made. In this case, the UAV autonomously records the process without any intervention by the owners or controllers. Consequently, it is Britannia Drones’ technology that has enabled the recordings to be made.
Following the strict rule of who has the legally exclusive rights in the sound and visual recordings, Britannia Drones qualifies. However, upon the sale of the UAVs, the legal interest in them is transferred to the buyers. Therefore, the controllers and owners have, to some extent, a legal interest in the recordings made by the UAVs, but not in the technology itself. Britannia Drones has an exclusive right to determine how its technology can be used and by whom. The Berne Convention provides the company with a means to control how the recordings can be used, by whom, and under what terms.
Under the Berne Convention, the doctrine of “automatic” protection may apply to the Britannia Drones case. The principle requires protection for entities’ literary works, including UAV recordings, even if they fail to meet the formalities under Qatar’s national laws. Article 5 of Law No.2 of 2002 qualifies audiovisual works for automatic protection as long as the producers have their headquarters or place of residence in the country. Since the recordings are fixed in a tangible medium, the automatic protection principle applies to the technology used to make them. Although Britannia Drones may have automatic protection for its technology, legal formalities are crucial to avoid potential misunderstandings.
Visual and Sound Recordings and Privacy Rights
Britannia Drones sells UAVs for various purposes, including private use. The company’s technology can infringe on the privacy of UAV buyers and operators. Law No. 13 Concerning Personal Data Privacy Protection Law (PDPPL) is the primary legislation on handling and protection of personal data and information. Britannia Drones qualifies to be the controller of the data collected through audio and visual recordings under the PDPPL. Although the company may enjoy exclusive copyrights of the works recorded by its technology, data protection is crucial.
Some individuals who purchase UAVs may use them in a private capacity, requiring that their information not be shared. Consequently, it is a legal and moral obligation for Britannia Drones to obtain their clients’ consent before commercializing the information collected by the UAVs. Article 10 of PDPPL requires the controllers, in our case, Britannia Drones, to obtain consent from the individuals whose data is used.
The company’s failure to inform the owners and controllers of the UAVs of the commercialization of data collected by their drones constitutes a violation of Article 10 of the PDPPL. Consequently, a possible legal battle may arise between the company and its client. The company may be subject to fines provided under the legislation.
Recommended Actions for Britannica Drones
Licensure and Registration
The ownership of the recordings extends to their expression, not to the underlying facts. Consequently, the use and commercialization of the recordings need proper licensure and authorization from the UAV owners. In accordance with the principles of “fair use” and “fair dealing”, Britannia Drones may use the recordings for non-commercial purposes. The organization, as outlined in Section 2 of the Open Data Licensing Policy, may seek licensure from the Ministry of Transport and Communication of Qatar. The license would allow it to sell, use, and share recordings that are adapted materials. Additionally, Britannia Drones must register its technology and associated works. The license and copyright certificate would allow the firm to enjoy the economic benefits of its creative technology exclusively.
Agreements with Clients
The UAV technology developed by Britannia Drones falls within the realm of inventions protected by intellectual property rights. Additionally, the computer program used to automate the UAVs is a literary work, as defined under Article 10 of the TRIPS Agreement. The agreement for commercializing the recordings ensures that the firm enjoys immunity from liability for its infringing activities that infringe upon rights to privacy under PDPPL. Therefore, the organization should obtain buyers’ consent through a sales agreement.
The contract of sale for UAVs must include terms and conditions that explain the technology incorporated into them and how the collected data will be used. Buyers who agree to these terms can receive devices equipped with activated voice recording technology. For those who disagree, an option can be provided to opt out of purchasing or to consider alternatives to UAVs that do not use this technology.
Compensation through Royalties
Britannia Drones holds the copyright for recordings made using their technology. However, such recordings are primarily focused on the use and control of UAVs by their owners. Although the owners do not modify or control the UAVs for recording, they have an interest in their use because they are the legal owners upon purchase.
Consequently, it will be prudent for Britannia Drones to develop a compensation mechanism for the clients who agree to have the technology activated in their UAVs. Payment of royalties encourages the firm’s clients to purchase and use the recording technology in their devices. Consequently, Britannia Drones benefits from increased UAV sales with fewer or no legal battles.
Data Protection Integrity
Data protection is of significant importance in the use of UAVs. Britannia Drones must implement a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) in accordance with Articles 11, paragraph 1, and 13 of the PDPPL. Additionally, under Article 11(5) of similar legislation, the firm must develop a data management system that addresses all issues that may arise. DPIA and the management of collected recording data should make it available to Britannia Drones, and third parties can access it only under its authority. The measures will help in promoting confidence among UAV owners.
Conclusion
The use of UAVs was initially primarily among military agencies, but has since gained popularity among private individuals and other entities. Britannia Drones has invested in technology, enabling their UAVs to feature automated visual and audio recording capabilities. While the firm sells the recordings for mapping and other survey activities, it does not seek consent from UAV owners who purchase them. A public license with friendly terms and a copyright certificate will ensure both parties benefit from the technology.
Bibliography
Al Sharif R and others, ‘Enabling Open Innovation in Digital Startups through the Incubation Program—a Case of Qatar’ (2022) 14 Sustainability 6557.
Elfakharani AMA, ‘Contemporary Legal Analysis of the International Sale Contract in the Vienna Convention: A Narrative Review’ (2022) 15 Baltic Journal of Law & Politics 457.
Flynn S and Alvarenga M, ‘Second Revised Draft Text for the WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty, annotated’ (Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law2023).
Hassija V and others, ‘Fast, Reliable, and Secure Drone Communication: A Comprehensive Survey’ (2021) 23 IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 2802.
Klocker C and Casalin D, ‘Discriminatory Practices in Armed Conflict Contexts: Exploring (Parallel) Proceedings under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination’ (2023) 27 The International Journal of Human Rights 1.
Law No. 7 of 2002 on the Protection of Copyrights and Neighboring Rights.
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, ‘State of Qatar Elected to Chair International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Union) Executive Committee for Two Years – Ministry of Commerce and Industry’ (2022).
Noerhadi CC, ‘Cybercrimes and Alternative Settlement of Intellectual Property (IPR) Disputes in Indonesia’ (2022) 16 International Journal of Cyber Criminology 89.
Paradise J and Conroy C, ‘Stumbling over Trips: The International Intellectual Property Waiver Petition and the U.S. Executive’ (2022) 30 Michigan State International Law Review 249.
Pillai G and others, ‘Privadome: Protecting Citizen Privacy from Delivery Drones’ [2022] Cryptography and Security.
Rowhani SM, ‘Rights-Based Boundaries of Unilateral Sanctions’ (2023) 32 UW Law Digital Commons 128.
Sawlani C, ‘Copyright, Culture and Contemporary Debates: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Fair Dealing in India’ (2023) 28 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR).
Securiti, ‘Qatar Personal Data Privacy Protection Law (PDPPL)’ (Securiti).
State of Qatar Constitution.
Suratman and others, ‘Independent Learning-Independent Campus: From the Perspective of Justice and Utilitarian Theories’ (2023) 2 Law and Humanities Quarterly Reviews.
The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty.
Yalabik FT, ‘Future of NFTs in the Entertainment Industry: No Longer the “Wild West” of Intellectual Property Law?’ (2023) 14 European Journal of Law and Technology.