Copyright Legislation Research Articles

Remixing Copyright Law: How Copyright Reform Can Empower Remix Creators and Internet Users

When it comes to domestic copyright legislation for the digital age, things really haven’t changed much since the implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) in 1998. While the legislation hasn’t changed, our creative world certainly has. In 1998, how many of us envisioned the world of remixers and independent creators producing content of a quality once reserved for the Hollywood elite? How many of us would have imagined the creation and widespread use of an open content license like Creative Commons that allows users to share their work in unprecedented ways? How many of us thought that ordinary people would be using this new technology to create and share everything from mundane pictures of meals at restaurants to the extraordinary live tweeting of the Arab Spring? The cultural and communications landscape has changed dramatically since 1998. The evolution of our creative culture and the way we communicate deserves a corresponding evolution of copyright law. At New Media Rights, we help hundreds of independent creators and internet users every day who struggle with digital copyright questions. Specifically we also work with remix creators who arguably face some of the greatest challenges in the area of digital copyright. Their challenges shine a spotlight on the areas that copyright law must be revise to better match the digital age so we can ensure the next generation of creators and remixers are as free to create as the generations that came before them. Because while technology has changed our basic human need to create, analyze and share has not.This article addresses four of the most common problems we’ve seen in our work with remix creators and proposes potential reforms to copyright law that could solve those problems. First, we will address the lack of meaningful safeguards against overreaching and specious takedowns. Specifically we’ll focus on 17 USC §512(f) failure to act as a viable tool for the average remix creator to fight back against these types of takedowns leaving many remix creators no meaningful recourse when their creations are removed from the internet. Second, we will address the problems created by the anti-circumvention provisions in 17 USC §1201. Specifically we’ll focus on how these overbroad provisions have made access to copyrighted materials for many fair use purposes illegal but for some limited and time bound exemptions. Third, we will address the problems created by the incomplete digitization of copyright office records. Specifically, how it has made reusing works created from 1923-1964 that are in the public domain too expensive for the average remix creator. Fourth, we will address the problem of the extraordinary duration of copyright and how it negatively impacts remix creators. And finally, we will address the potential pitfalls in the proposed Small Claims Copyright Court for small scale creators. Specifically we will highlight crucial safeguards that must be a part of the final iteration of The Court. We hope that by discussing these five problems we’ve observed in the field we will spark discussion and encourage badly needed copyright reform for the digital age.

Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions

In 2013 the European Union amended the Directive on Public Sector Information, establishing the principle that all available information produced and collected by public sector institutions must be made available for reuse under open terms and conditions. The amended Directive also brings publicly funded libraries, museums and archives into its scope. These new rules on reuse of heritage materials, treated as public sector information (PSI), attempt for the first time to define a general framework for sharing cultural heritage information all around Europe. In this paper we argue that if Member States are not careful, the implementation of the changes required by the new Directive could do more harm than good when it comes to access to digitized cultural heritage in Europe. These concerns center on how the directive interacts with copyright legislation. The paper recommends that in order to contribute to the opening up of cultural heritage resources, Member States should ensure that all qualifying documents that are not currently covered by third party intellectual property rights fall within the scope of the Directive. Member States should also implement the Directive in a way that does not encourage or require institutions to charge for the reuse of works that they make available for reuse. For documents that are still protected by intellectual property rights but where these rights are held by the cultural heritage institutions that have these works in their collections, Member States should encourage the use of Open Definition-compliant licenses.

Использование объектов авторского права в машинном обучении: в поисках баланса интересов правообладателей и общества

The introduction of artificial intelligence opens up great opportunities, but at the same time poses new challenges for legislators and courts. One of these challenges is to find a balance between the interests of copyright holders of works used in machine learning and society interested in the development of artificial intelligence technology. In the article, the author analyzes the state of current copyright legislation and law enforcement practice. The subject of the study is a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by a group of writers (Paul Tremblay et al.) against the artificial intelligence developer OpenAI, which is being processed by the US District Court (Northern District of California): the author evaluates the use of works in machine learning for compliance with the conditions for applying the fair use doctrine. The author comes to the conclusion about the need to supplement cases of free use of works through use in machine learning systems.

Copyright Challenges of Legal Deposit and Web Archiving in the National Library of Singapore

This article discusses the development of web archiving in Singapore and its relationship to copyright law. The author describes legal deposit, its definition and historical development, the differences between voluntary and compulsory legal deposit, and the practices of such approaches within the National Library of Singapore. It highlights two main projects, the Singapore Memory Project and Web Archive Singapore (WAS). The paper analyses how the implementation of legal deposit for preserving web material creates a complex relationship between copyright and digital heritage, and describes difficulties that cover the information lifecycle of web archiving. Finally, the paper presents a set of conclusions and recommendations regarding the need for modifying copyright legislation to foster research activities within Singapore's knowledge economy.

Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright for Educational and Information Purposes: A Study of the Greek, European and International Legal Context

The starting point of the present study is the realization that the social need for education and the fundamental freedom of expression and access to information always have and always will delimit authors’ exclusive economic rights and related rights on copyrighted works to an extent justified by the interest of the community in participating in the dissemination of knowledge and culture. The study considers the use of copyrighted works for educational and information purposes under the provisions on exceptions and limitations in the existing copyright regime (international, EU and national) with a focus on Greek copyright legislation, in an attempt to demonstrate the directions to which copyright law is progressing in the light of fundamental human rights and freedoms and the influence of new technology on the economy and society with regard to the flow of information in the frameworks of education and information.

English

The increasing number of creators who publish their works has led to an increase in copyright violations and a pressure on copyright legislation. It is herein argued that as copyright becomes prohibitive, social norms, domestic cultural and economic diversity consideration as well as the values of the copyright holder tend to dominate so that using domestic norms to generate international norms would more easily permit attention to issues raised by new technology, and can thus supply the dynamism missing from classical public international law making. The generation and distribution of knowledge should conventionally be viewed as the central purpose of the grant of copyright protection. This is because copyright is an incentive that, properly calibrated, can positively affect the creation and availability of knowledge. Also, canvassed herein is the need for an upward review of copyright term to afford copyright holders and their heirs more time to reap the fruits of their efforts. Such review will at the same time boost the economy of a nation. The Private international litigation, if configured to reduce application of purely national norms, might make a beneficial contribution to internationalization in ways that are dynamic, more balanced, and more respectful of national differences. The Berne Convention must therefore, seek to balance two competing objectives: providing copyright protection on an international scale, and a respect for cultural and economic diversity. It is submitted that since the Berne Convention, the world has greatly changed giving rise to the need for an upward review of copyright duration. The purpose of the Copyright term extension is to ensure adequate copyright protection for copyrighted works by extending the term of copyright protection for at least an additional 20 years. Key words: Copyright, convention, protection, right, holder, signatory, use, fair.

The Road of Cooperation: Assessing the Evolving Interaction between Copyright Owners and ISPs From ISP Legislation to the Graduated Response

Stepping into digital age, the digital technology with internet communication breed a new intermediary which significantly reshape the distribution of copyrighted works.Copyright owners seeks for other strategy in order to control the online piracy. They refer to copyright legislation as solution. Both US and EU respectively enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and E-Commerce Directive which provides provisions to immune ISP’s liability in online copyright infringement so long as ISP complies with the requirement under the provisions. The graduated response system establishes the cooperation between copyright owners and ISPs. By transferring partial burden of enforcement to ISPs, copyright owners save substantial enforcement costs and increase the stakeholder in online copyright enforcement. To ISPs, the economic benefits and additional incentives encourage them to join the system and promote the cooperation. As a prospective enforcement strategy, various jurisdictions have adopted or begin to introduce the system to their countries. Simply put, the graduated response system requires an ISP to issue a notice to the subscriber when the subscriber is found to engage in online piracy. If the subscriber ignores the first notice, the subsequent notices will be sent and further actions would imposed on the subscriber. The focal point lies in that ISP should actively monitor the activities of their subscribers. According to the design, ISP under graduated responses system bear partial duty and costs of online copyright enforcement. Therefore, this system is welcomed and supported by copyright owners. On the other hand, ISPs also obtain benefits through the employment of this system by cooperating with copyright owners. Under the circumstances, both parties forge the aligning incentives under the system.

Evolution and Trends Regarding the Concepts of Innovation and Invention

The paper is focused on analyzing the difference between the concepts of innovation and invention in terms of trends and evolution. The research is centered on innovation with invention being a benchmark for validating results. An economic perspective regarding the differences between invention and innovation is presented. The differences between the two concepts are also analyzed from a legal point of view. The number of references to the concept of innovation, made into a large corpus of books, is analyzed from an evolutionary perspective. The concept of invention is also analyzed in terms of number of occurrences in books. A pattern is drafted for both innovation and invention. The paper tackles the interest shown by the online community in innovation compared to the interested showed in invention. Relevant data sets depict the world's most interested online communities in innovation and invention. Online communities are analyzed by country and by city. Online communities' interest in innovation and invention is measured using statistics regarding Google searches. Events that triggered picks in interest shown towards one concept or the other are identified and portrayed. Data from relevant reports that are publicly available is presented.Keywords: Innovation, Invention, Search Trends, Public Data1 Innovation and InventionI nnovation and invention are two different notions that should not be seen as equivalent. Invention is the first occurrence of a new idea or a new concept in regards to a product or a process [1]. Invention is not a random process but is the result of research, study or repeated attempts. Invention must be distinguished from discovery. The latter involves finding or highlighting conditions or facts still unknown. An invention has to be unique worldwide where as an innovation has to be unique locally, in a certain region or area.Innovation is the implementation of an idea or an invention which leads to improving and perfecting a product, a method, a theory or a service with the sole purpose of accomplishing, at a higher standard, the objectives that were originally designed for [2]. From an economic point of view an innovation is regarded as an invention that has been successfully implemented and generated added value, profit, higher income or superior quality. Innovation must have a positive impact on society, economy and the political sphere. Not all inventions have the merit to be considered innovations. In the IT industry new software applications or new versions of a product are launched on the market every day. Some are adopted by users and gain notoriety but most disappear into anonymity.From a legal point of view the distinction between innovation and invention comes from the fact that innovation is an improvement, a refinement of a product or technology, but only locally while the invention has to be new worldwide [3].According to criteria depicted in Table 1 the only common element between innovation and invention their random nature. Thus both innovation and invention occur in certain scenarios as a result of random processes. Innovation and invention evolved separately and have known distinct purposes and notoriety in society. Innovation was initially regarded as a useless and damaging novelty. In the 18th century innovation was identified with the introduction of anything deviant in political affairs and in religion. Innovation was considered heresy [10].2 Evolution of Occurrence in BooksBooks are a relevant indicator for determining the evolution of society's interest related to certain subjects and topics. When certain concepts are of interest they generate literature to fuel that interest. Google has setup a project to scan books and makes the content available online. For books that are no longer subject to copyright legislation the entire content is available. For books that are protected by copyright only sample content is publicly available. …

Copyright law-making in the EU: what lies under the 'internal market' mask?

The European Union (EU) legislative activity in the field of copyright has so far been mainly based on what is now Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows the EU to harmonise national laws for the establishment and functioning of the internal market. However, this provision provides for a functional competence and does not give much normative guidance regarding the content of legislation.This article seeks to assess whether the lack of normative guidance of Article 114 TFEU has resulted in a normative gap in copyright lawmaking. For that purpose, the author uses social sciences’ techniques to map the underlying goals of EU copyright legislation, to then analyse how those goals relate to the main competence norm.

Re-Use of Public Sector Information in Cultural Heritage Institutions

In 2013 the European Union amended the Directive on Public Sector Information, establishing the principle that all available information produced and collected by public sector institutions must be made available for reuse under open terms and conditions. The amended Directive also brings publicly funded libraries, museums and archives into its scope. These new rules on reuse of heritage materials, treated as public sector information (PSI), attempt for the first time to define a general framework for sharing cultural heritage information all around Europe. In this paper we argue that if Member States are not careful, the implementation of the changes required by the new Directive could do more harm than good when it comes to access to digitized cultural heritage in Europe. These concerns center on how the directive interacts with copyright legislation. The paper recommends that in order to contribute to the opening up of cultural heritage resources, Member States should ensure that all qualifying documents that are not currently covered by third party intellectual property rights fall within the scope of the Directive. Member States should also implement the Directive in a way that does not encourage or require institutions to charge for the reuse of works that they make available for reuse. For documents that are still protected by intellectual property rights but where these rights are held by the cultural heritage institutions that have these works in their collections, Member States should encourage the use of Open Definition-compliant licenses.

Copyright and the Commons: Eileen Simpson and Ben White’s <em>Struggle in Jerash</em> (2009)

David Joselit's After Artis devoted to analyzing scale and speed at which proliferate today as well as ways in which these trajectories have been taken up in recent artistic practice. In midst of a discussion of work of Pierre Huyghe, an artist who has dealt extensively with issues of intellectual property, a footnote with an at best tenuous relationship to body of text rather perplexingly deems a discussion of copyright beyond scope of book.1 As that body of laws that serves to regulate scale and speed at which may legally proliferate, one might assume that considerations of copyright would play a significant role in Joselit's text. But it is this exclusion that allows Joselit to set up what is perhaps book's grounding opposition, between what he terms the free 'neoliberal' circulation of images and a fundamentalist attitude that posits that art and architecture are rooted to a specific place.* There is no question as to where Joselit locates his own allegiances in this conflict: for him, neoliberal circulation proposes exciting new forms of connectivity, while fundamentalists cling to rather unfortunate privileging of discrete objects and fail to recognize that contemporary existence is characterized above all by ecstatic mobility. Despite centrality of logic of privatization to economic philosophy of neoliberalism, privatization of visual culture through aggressive enforcement of copyright nowhere enters into Joselit's application of this term to realm of images.Copyright's absence here takes on a strategic importance, as it allows Joselit to map an opposition of present/past onto that of neoliberal movement/fundamentalist stasis and make an epochal claim for ours as a time of unfettered transmission and networked relationality. A consideration of copyright law, and particularly extent to which it has rigidified over last twenty years, would temper apparent freedoms of neoliberal circulation thatjoselit values by introducing a discussion of a pervasive form of control irreducible to fundamentalism he can so easily dismiss as oldfashioned. During this period, aggressive legislation and prosecution, copyright enforcement robots, and digital rights management systems have transformed a set of laws originally formulated to stimulate creativity into a framework for profit-motivated policing. In particular, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, passed by a unanimous vote in U.S. Senate, heralded a new era of extremism.3 But for Joselit, an assessment of realities of copyright in post-DMCA context would reveal its ability to render sclerotic connective circuits he holds so dear.Such an affirmation of unbridled circulation is exemplary of a pervasive tendency among artists and critics engaging with contemporary mobility of images, though it is seldom expressed as explicitly as it is in After Art. It is a tendency that cuts across a wide variety of aesthetic and political investments to celebrate promiscuous circulation as sine qua non of contemporary visual culture, often implicidy replaying long-standing but spurious association of digital technology with freedom, democracy, and user autonomy. However, just as it is necessary to recognize Internet as a technology of both freedom and control, so too is it imperative that contemporary circulation of is understood as both more unmoored and more restrained than ever before. In 1994 John Perry Barlow, founder of Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote that Intellectual property law cannot be patched, retrofitted, or expanded to contain digitized expression any more than real estate law might be revised to cover allocation of broadcasting spectrum-and yet this is exactly what has occurred.4 Though such revisions are certainly not watertight, they cannot be ignored. Moreover, this development is not particularly surprising; after all, history of copyright legislation is nothing other than history of grappling with technological innovations that challenge it. …

‘Back to my roots’: artifak and festivals in Vanuatu, Southwest Pacific

The production of artefacts in Vanuatu (artifak in Bislama, the Pidgin lingua franca used in the islands of the archipelago) takes place in a context of cultural revival as well as tourism. Central to the production of knowledge and art are notions of indigenised copyright (kopiraet), offering cultural as well as economic capital/value to producers and/or owners. While contemporary art in Vanuatu is restricted by customary copyright legislation, customary art production and performance are promoted by different aid and funding bodies. Customary arts feature festivals, entwined with both cultural revival as well as tourism, and held at regular intervals in the outer islands of the archipelago. Within this space, performers, local audiences and visitors (such as tourists and art collectors) negotiate notions of ‘otherness’, of the authenticity of people and things, although it is an authenticity inevitably commodified in the process. This creates ambivalence and a feeling of loss of authenticity among both local people and visitors alike, but it also generates a series of values that relate to status and prestige among locals. This article, based on fieldwork in Vanuatu in 2009 and 2010–11, argues that what the author calls ‘the contemporary turn in “ethnographic art”’ generates increasing participation by local people in globalisation processes and the global art world.

Review of Canadian University Fair Dealing Policies

The past three years have seen a number of changes in the area of copyright law, particularly in the area of education. As a result, Canadian universities have had to make policy decisions to account for these changes and the resulting expansion of fair dealing rights. The content and consistency of the resulting policies may have a significant effect on the future interpretation of fair dealing rights. In this paper I analyze the current state of fair dealing policies and supporting information found on university web sites. I conclude that an ideal fair dealing policy is open ended and flexible, and incorporates mention of the significant elements of copyright legislation, court decisions, and other areas of law, in a way that is accessible to its intended audience of faculty and instructors.

The Battle Over Public E-Libraries – Taking Stock and Moving Ahead

In this digital era public and academic libraries serve as key players in the promotion of access to knowledge. The legal discourse concerning realization of the promise of public e-libraries has thus far focused on two major battle-fronts: mass digitization of libraries’ collections and free access to the products of academic research funded by the public. Nonetheless, the radar of public and legal discourse has failed to identify a far more troublesome phenomenon, one which presents a threat to the very ability of the public e-libraries to fulfill their function. The digital era has created a profound shift in libraries’ practice, finding expression in the transition from purchasing shelf-books to purchasing licenses to electronic resources. These licenses control the libraries’ ability to pursue their declared goals, and highlight the core problem of private ordering in the information market. One of the most acute manifestations of this problem is the common practice, which has taken on world-wide dimensions, whereby these licenses restrict various uses otherwise permitted by copyright law. The exceptions and limitations acknowledged by copyright legislation are tailored in a manner that gives increased weight to the public interest. The clash between the phenomenon of restrictive contracts and the policy underlying intellectual property is therefore clear. The position advanced in this article is that there are sound justifications for a focused rule that would invalidate restrictive contracts, at least in the context of public e-libraries. These justifications are based on the function served by public e-libraries as a gateway to knowledge and in the promotion of social justice and freedom of speech. Moreover, the proposed rule should be adopted on an international level; otherwise it can easily be circumvented. The global political economy in the copyright arena has experienced major upheavals in recent years, resulting in a steadily growing demand for the expansion of users’ rights. These developments create the potential for the adoption of an international instrument designed to regulate the sphere of public libraries.

Preserving Europe's Digital Cultural Heritage: A Legal Perspective

Intellectual property law and copyright regulation represent strong determining influences on the practice of digital preservation, and it is essential to comprehend clearly not only what the law requires, but also to develop mitigation strategies in response to the legal risks involved in any proposed digital preservation activity. Accomplishing this is far from easy, not least because European IPR and Copyright legislation exhibits a lack of consistency within individual national legislative frameworks, as well as between different member states of the EU. Key terms, such as “multimedia work” are understood differently across Europe, and the European Community framework which is meant to provide the basis of a harmonized legal landscape, is by no means implemented evenly across the EU. There is a tendency for national legislation to be both more permissive than Community law, and for it to provide a greater degree of detailed governance. More importantly, some relatively liberal practices which are supported by national regulation are, in certain key areas, almost certainly incompatible with Community law.

Lehrstuhl Digital Library / Lehrstuhl Digitale Bibliothek / La chaire bibliothèques numériques

The article provides an overview of the “Lehrstuhl” (professorship) for digital libraries at the Berlin School of Library and Information Science. The “Lehrstuhl” teaches both bachelor and masters students, and offers support for its doctoral students. The main areas of teaching are (1) research methods, with a particular focus on statistics and ethnography, and (2) digital libraries, with a focus on the development, scope, structure and metadata standards of digital libraries. Research covers the areas of long-term digital archiving - including “digital cultural migration”. The Berlin School is a partner of the LOCKSS (“Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe”) long-term archiving network. A second research focus is on information behavior especially in the digital environment, and using ethnographic methods. Other research areas include the impact of copyright legislation and the history of information.

Introduction to Copyright Protection in Nepal

Copyright encourages creativity, it provides authors and artists of all types and in all countries with a means of transacting in their works, a means by which they can earn their livelihood, and as such has an important role to play in encouraging all forms of creative endeavor and by encouraging creative endeavor copyright helps to maintain cultural diversity. This paper gives insight of overall status of Intellectual Property in Nepal, particularly focused on Copyright legislation of Nepal. Adjusting legal system of copyright is vigorously in need in the twenty-first century. A close and critical reading of the text reveals several instances of lapses and defects, which exist, to a great extent, simply because copyright has never been applied previously in Nepal. Any interference with their exclusive rights could impact harshly on deserving authors in both developed and developing countries. So, paper further deals with the rights of the authors. Lastly this article in brief explores the commonalities and differences between Nepal and India Copyright Law in particular, focuses on the latitude offered under each system for parodies of copyrighted world. Along with this, paper analyze and find lacuna of Copyright Act of Nepal with recommendation.

W211004 著作権法の課題 : 情報倫理学の視点から(【W21100】イノベーションと知的財産,法工学専門会議企画,ワークショップ)

This paper explores problems concerning copyright legislation from the point of information ethics. The concept of copyright is ethically justified by two social functions. First, the copyright system prevents free riders, who produce pirated editions of works to retain market order. Second, it prevents the loss of monetary incentives for people to create and distribute works by prohibiting the production of pirated editions. Recently, Japan's copyright reforms strengthened the regulation to make the range of private uses of copyrighted works narrower in the type of uses. The strengthening of copyright may dwarf other social values, such as public access to information, free speech, and freedom to learn. However, if creators and distributers are rational with respect to economics and seek to maximize their benefits from their works, the copyright system's second function may justify their desires. The further strengthening of copyright justified by the second function of the copyright system will probably have strong affection on the fair use of copyrighted works. Therefore, if we need to balance the copyright system with other social values, we should pay more attention to social benefits instead of the claims of creators and distributors regarding their interests.

Library and Information Resources in Electronic Form in the Copyright Legislation

The issues of the users’ free access to the library national collections and to the copyright law creating objects are considered in the paper. Methodical recommendations for libraries in a current legislation context about copyright on acquisitions of library collection, creation of own library and information resources, use of library and information resources of other libraries and information centers, and also the electronic on-line resources available through local or telecommunication networks are made.

“Land of the Long Black Cloud”: Copyright Globalization and Viral Counterpublicity in Aotearoa New Zealand

Viral flows of counterpublicity are an increasingly common occurrence in the global modular network of the modern public spheres. This article applies a public sphere theoretical framework built upon the radical or agonistic tradition and a critical discourse analytical methodological framework to interpret the example of the 2009 New Zealand Internet Blackout, which was mobilized in protest against impending copyright legislation that would have rendered the Aotearoa New Zealand environment one of the harshest in the world. It shows that viral counterpublicity can generate successful counterhegemonic projects and even bring about legislative change, and in doing so, makes the argument that our understanding of what the modern public sphere is should allow for more unruly and contentious forms of democratically legitimate communication.