Copyright Policy Research Articles

Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles

ResearchGate is increasingly used by scholars to upload the full-text of their articles and make them freely available for everyone. This study aims to investigate the extent to which ResearchGate members as authors of journal articles comply with publishers' copyright policies when they self-archive full-text of their articles on ResearchGate. A random sample of 500 English journal articles available as full-text on ResearchGate were investigated. 108 articles (21.6%) were open access (OA) published in OA journals or hybrid journals. Of the remaining 392 articles, 61 (15.6%) were preprint, 24 (6.1%) were post-print and 307 (78.3%) were published (publisher) PDF. The key finding was that 201 (51.3%) out of 392 non-OA articles infringed the copyright and were non-compliant with publishers' policy. While 88.3% of journals allowed some form of self-archiving (SHERPA/RoMEO green, blue or yellow journals), the majority of non-compliant cases (97.5%) occurred when authors self-archived publishers' PDF files (final published version). This indicates that authors infringe copyright most of the time not because they are not allowed to self-archive, but because they use the wrong version, which might imply their lack of understanding of copyright policies and/or complexity and diversity of policies.

Copyright ownership of e-learning and teaching materials: Policy approaches taken by UK universities

Investigates whether and how UK university copyright policies address key copyright ownership issues relating to printed and electronic teaching materials. A content analysis of 81 UK university copyright policies is performed to understand their approach towards copyright ownership of printed and e-learning materials and performances; rights on termination of contract; rights of non-staff contributors. Cross-tabulations are performed with the mission group and age of copyright policy. 90% of copyright policies address teaching materials explicitly. Fewer universities (77%) claim ownership of internal teaching materials than e-learning materials (84%). Only 20% address performance rights, 46% address rights of non-employees, and 44% address rights on termination of contract. Russell Group universities have more liberal copyright policies around ownership of teaching materials than newer universities. Recent copyright policies are more liberal than older policies. Recommends that UK universities work with academic staff to address key copyright policy issues in a way that balances the rights of both parties. This the first empirical study of UK university copyright policy approaches towards the ownership of teaching and e-learning materials.

ICLE Comments on Judiciary Committee Review of U.S. Copyright Law: Policy Proposal for Copyright Office Reform

“Given the importance of copyright protection to the US national interest, including from an economic, political and social perspective (on which, please see our response to the Register’s request for comments, attached), we strongly agree with the proposal set forth by the Committee to reform the Copyright Office. First, we agree with the Committee that in order to best advance the interests of the United States — “to meet the needs of a modern 21st Century copyright system” — the Copyright Office should be established as a stand-alone office in the legislative branch, and that the Register be nominated and subject to confirmation by Congress. As will undoubtedly be articulated in other submissions, the establishment of the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress was largely an accident of history related to the deposit of copies and the Library collection. But there is little reason to continue the status quo in an environment of constant change when it no longer best serves the interests of the nation. For much of our history, while there may have been the potential for some conflict between the objectives of the Library and those of the Copyright Office, they tended to be minimal, and largely to be avoided by the Library’s general deference to the Copyright Office in matters affecting copyright policy. As will undoubtedly be articulated in other submissions, the establishment of the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress was largely an accident of history related to the deposit of copies and the Library collection. But there is little reason to continue the status quo in an environment of constant change when it no longer best serves the interests of the nation. For much of our history, while there may have been the potential for some conflict between the objectives of the Library and those of the Copyright Office, they tended to be minimal, and largely to be avoided by the Library’s general deference to the Copyright Office in matters affecting copyright policy. In the current digital environment, however, the intersections and points of conflict between Library priorities focused on preservation and access, and Copyright Office priorities of encouraging and protecting creativity, have grown more frequent and more fundamental….”

UK university policy approaches towards the copyright ownership of scholarly works and the future of open access

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to consider how the open access policy environment has developed since the Rights Metadata for Open Archiving Project’s call in 2003 for universities and academics to assert joint copyright ownership of scholarly works and investigate whether UK universities are moving towards a joint copyright ownership.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyses 81 UK university copyright policies to understand what proportion make a claim over: IP ownership of all outputs; the copyright in scholarly works; re-using scholarly works in specific ways; and approaches to moral rights. Results are cross-tabulated by policy age and mission group.FindingsUniversities have not asserted their interest in scholarly works through joint ownership, leaving research funders and publishers to set open access policy. The paper finds an increased proportion of universities assert a generic claim to all IP (87 per cent) relative to earlier studies. In total, 74 per cent of policies relinquished rights in scholarly works in favour of academic staff; 20 per cent of policies share ownership of scholarly works through licensing; 28 per cent of policies assert the right to re-use scholarly works in some way; and 32 per cent of policies seek to protect moral rights. Policies that “share” ownership of scholarly works are more recent. The UK Scholarly Communication Licence (UK-SCL) should have an impact on this area. The reliance on individual academics to enforce a copyright policy or not to opt-out of the UK-SCL could be problematic. The paper concludes that open access may still be best served by joint ownership of scholarly works.Originality/valueThis the first large-scale analysis of UK university policy positions towards scholarly works. The paper discovers for the first time a move towards “shared” ownership of scholarly works in copyright policies.

A Longitudinal Study on the Changes to Copyright Policies for Korean KCI Journals

A Longitudinal Study on the Changes to Copyright Policies for Korean KCI Journals

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

Music industry and copyright protection in the United States and China

From the standard economic rationale, music copyright supports the rights of authors and creators to exclude competitors and the public from accessing and copying their works to the extent necessary to provide incentive to recover the investment they made in creating those works. The necessary extent in music copyright is from the interplay of three historical drivers of copyright policy—technology (which makes things possible), the market (which gives rise to consumer demand and companies delivering goods and services to satisfy those consumers), and the law (which determines the rules of the road). Due to differences in cultural traditions and historical developments, these processes have been different for the United States and China. This “In Focus” report briefly explores intellectual property and music copyright in these two countries from an historical perspective, comments on their current state, and reflects on future directions.

Study on Google’s copyright policy relating to the News work

Study on Google’s copyright policy relating to the News work

Movie Piracy and Displaced Sales in Europe: Evidence from Six Countries

This paper presents estimates of lost movie sales due to unpaid movie consumption. We are the first to provide estimates that are recent, representative of the internet-using population, and cover multiple countries. Based on an online questionnaire with almost 30,000 respondents, we document that one unpaid (first) viewing of a movie displaces about 0.37 units of paid viewings. Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, we show that this implies that unpaid movie viewings reduced movie sales in Europe by about 4.4% during the sample period. Lost sales differ substantially by country: they are in the range of 1.65% for Germany and 10.4% for Spain. We also find that 94% of lost sales are due to unpaid viewings by a small group of only 20% of consumers. Our findings have important implications for copyright policy.

Copyright (and) Culture: the governance of audiovisual archives

Purpose This paper asks the following research question: What are the policy dynamics of copyright regulation for digital audiovisual (AV) archives in Europe and what is their potential impact? The paper aims to discuss the social relevance of archives, European cultural policies targeting operationalisation of these archives and underpinnings and sought implementation of copyright policies. Design/methodology/approach Drawing upon three European cultural policy approaches, namely, democratisation of culture, cultural democracy and governmentalisation of culture, the discussion aims to situate current legislative attempts within digital content governance and examine policy as to its proclaimed aims of broadening access. The authors deployed macro-level legal analyses of key legislative acts of the European Union (EU) with direct relevance to the availability of and accessibility to digital historical content by European citizens. The authors juxtapose relevant cultural policy interventions with the corresponding legal rules and norms in copyright legislation. The authors evaluate the ways in which normative arguments are reflected in these acts and propose reflections on documented and possible impact. Findings The authors argue that the EU’s legal direction is characterised by uncertainty of conviction and internal tensions regarding the place of common cultural heritage in EU policy, and they present a restrictive acknowledgement of what culture and heritage policy entail and, by extension, how cultural matters should be governed. Cultural heritage AV archives are examples of digital content whose governance was almost “automatically” linked to copyright. Originality/value The paper links copyright and cultural policy and demonstrates that although the EU cultural policy is based on access, availability and usability, copyright is unnecessarily restraining them with the improper design and implementation of exceptions and limitations. This reflects EU’s focus on the single market, which, in this case, is pursued at the expense of building of a European identity with shared memories.

Claims to Expand Copyright Exceptions Driven by 'Bad Science'

This report reviews a number of papers being used to try and justify major copyright policy changes in Asia Pacific. Specifically, this reports reviews five papers cited by Google in Australia in support of its submission (the Submission) to the Productivity Commission's (PC) inquiry into Australia's intellectual property arrangements. In the Submission, Google expressed the view that Australia's copyright system is not as effective, efficient or adaptive as it needs to be, and that it is impeding Australia¹s capacity to innovate.Our review of the empirical data Google cites, however, finds that in general, contrary to the claims that they are being used to support, these studies conclusions are bad science and offer no substantial empirical evidence of a causal link between broader copyright exceptions and productivity and economic growth. The studies cited in the Submission have been discredited, containing fundamental errors in empirical research, making them unfit for policy-making. Moreover, the evidence in the studies appears to contradict the claims made in the Submission. In particular:- The 2012 Singapore fair use study cited by Google suggests that US-style fair use exceptions in Singapore were associated with a fall in the rate of growth of copyright industries. Singaporean copyright industry revenue growth slowed from 14.16 per cent to around 6.68 per cent per annum after the introduction of fair use.- The 2012 Australian Lateral Economics Study cited by Google shows that fair use exceptions in the US are associated with a lower rate of growth of value-add in what it calls copyright exceptions industries in the US, compared the same industries in Australia.Thus, as a result of the empirical analysis contained herein, this report concludes that the argument advanced by the Submission that broader copyright exceptions will promote productivity and economic growth is not based on sound research.

Copyright and Intellectual Property: What You Need to Know

In this session of the NASIG and Society of Scholarly Publishing joint program, a panel of lawyers conversed on topics related to the creation of copyright policy that impact both librarians and publishers. The topics chosen were selected to highlight areas of possible controversy between librarians and publishers. Dialogue centered on the concepts of international first sale, fair use, licensing and mass digitization, library exceptions, possible revisions to sections of the U.S. Copyright Act, and the relationships between accessibility issues and copyright. Through conversational style discussions the panelists conveyed to the audience that achieving balance in copyright law is challenging and the process often creates constructive tension among the rights of stakeholders.

An Empirical Study of Law Journal Copyright Practices

This article presents an empirical study of the copyright practices of American law journals in relation to copyright ownership and fair use, based on a 24-question survey. It concludes that many American law journals have adopted copyright policies that are inconsistent with the expectations of legal scholars and the scope of copyright protection. Specifically, many law journals have adopted copyright policies that effectively preclude open-access publishing, and unnecessarily limit the fair use of copyrighted works. In addition, it appears that some law journals may not understand their own copyright policies. This article proposes the creation of a Code of Copyright Best Practices for Law Journals in order to encourage both open-access publishing and fair use.

BLACK BOX TINKERING: Beyond Transparency in Algorithmic Enforcement

The pervasive growth of algorithmic enforcement magnifies current debates regarding the virtues of transparency. Not only does using codes to conduct robust online enforcement amplify the settled problem of magnitude, or “too-much-information,” often associated with present-day disclosures, it imposes additional practical difficulties on relying on transparency as an adequate check for algorithmic enforcement. In this Essay we explore the virtues of black box tinkering methodology as means of generating accountability in algorithmic systems of online enforcement. Given the far-reaching implications of algorithmic enforcement of online content for public discourse and fundamental rights, we advocate active public engagement in checking the practices of automatic enforcement systems.Accordingly, we explain the inadequacy of transparency in generating public oversight. First, it is very difficult to read, follow and predict the complex computer code which underlies algorithms as it is inherently non-transparent and capable of evolving according to different patterns of data. Second, mandatory transparency requirements are irrelevant to many private implementations of algorithmic governance which are subject to trade secrecy. Third, algorithmic governance is so robust that even without mandatory transparency it is impossible to review all the information already disclosed. Fourth, when algorithms are called on to replace humans in making determinations that involve discretion, transparency about the algorithms’ inputs (the facts) and outputs (the outcomes) is not enough to allow adequate oversight. This is because a given legal outcome does not necessarily yield sufficient information about the reasoning behind it. Subsequently we establish the benefits of black box tinkering as a proactive methodology that encourages social activism, using the example of a recent study of online copyright enforcement practices by online intermediaries. That study sought to test systematically how hosting websites implement copyright policy by examining the conduct of popular local image-sharing platforms and popular local video-sharing platforms. Particularly, different types of infringing, non-infringing and fair use materials were uploaded to various hosting facilities, each intended to trace choices made by the black box system throughout its enforcement process. The study’s findings demonstrate that hosting platforms are inconsistent, therefore unpredictable in detecting online infringement and enforcing copyrights: some platforms allow content that is filtered by others; some platforms strictly respond to any notice requesting removal of content despite its being clearly non-infringing, while other platforms fail to remove content upon notice of alleged infringement. Moreover, many online mechanisms of algorithmic copyright enforcement generally do very little in terms of minimizing errors and ensuring that interested parties do not abuse the system to silence legitimate speech and over-enforce copyright. Finally, the findings indicate that online platforms do not make full efforts to secure due process and allow affected individuals to follow, and promptly respond to, proceedings that manage their online submissions.Based on these findings, we conclude that black box tinkering methodology could offer an invaluable grasp of algorithmic enforcement practices on the ground. We hence evaluate the possible legal implications of this methodology and propose means to address them.

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

The American Literature Society of Japan Copyright Policy

Re-Defining Copyright Originality Test

Viewing copyright works more from the “literary work” perspective. This article answers the question whether a test as one requiring creativity (on the author’s part) strictly, and one requiring mere labour is sufficient to advance copyright policies. The article criticizes the creativity test (the renowned US Feist decision especially) for “shutting out” the sweat of the brow test. The need for criticizing “sweat of the brow” was unnecessary as it is a low standard – and does not agitate the applicability of the “creativity” test. In contrast, it is the “creativity” test that suggests a departure and sanction of the “sweat of the brow” test. It became clear from the research this article focused on that both tests partially foster copyright policies. This partial effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the two tests led the writer to propose a new copyright “originality” test. A test that could be reviewed by the legislature in drafting the originality test for copyright (futuristically) and “ought” to be employed by jurists in determining copyright subsistence in works. This, in fact is the addition/contribution to knowledge made by the article. The article presents these issues as highlighted by examining the laws in the EU (examining the EU parliament’s legislation on copyrights), UK, US, Canada, Australia and other continental legal systems.

Copyright Literacy in the UK: a survey of librarians and other cultural heritage sector professionals

Based on a survey of UK library and information professionals and those who work in the cultural heritage sector, carried out in December 2014, this research sought to examine the levels of copyright ‘literacy’. The survey aimed to obtain responses from all sectors, however most responses were received from academic libraries. The research examined their knowledge of national and international copyright issues as well as copyright policies at an institutional level. The survey also explored the need for copyright education for new and existing professionals and suggested topics for inclusion in training activities. The findings suggest that levels of knowledge amongst UK professionals are higher than those in other countries who participated in the first phase of the project. UK institutions are also more likely to have a copyright policy and an individual with responsibility for copyright. The results should be of interest to library managers, library educators and those with responsibility for staff training.