"Stealing Our Heritage?": Women's Folksongs, Copyright Law, and the Public Domain in Algeria

Africa Today ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane E. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The Public

Creative Choices: Changes to Australian Copyright Law and the Future of the Public Domain

2005 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Moore
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Current Model ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Extended Duration

Changes to Australian copyright law introduced under the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement will diminish the public domain, criminalise common copyright infringing practices and locally introduce significant portions of the controversial 1998 American Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This paper examines these imminent changes to Australian copyright law, with specific attention to the potential effects of the extended duration of copyright protection and the introduction of technological anti-circumvention measures. It argues that public domain-enhancing activities are crucial for sustaining cultural creativity and technological innovation, and discusses the potential role of the Creative Commons movement in establishing economically viable and legal alternatives to the current model of trade-oriented copyright reform.

scholarly journals Property on the Line: Life on the Frontier between Copyright and the Public Domain

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Graeme W Austin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Line Life ◽  
The Public ◽  
Inaugural Lecture ◽  
Creativity And Innovation ◽  
The Relationship

This article is an edited transcript of Professor Graeme W Austin's Inaugural Lecture, delivered in the Council Chamber of Victoria University of Wellington on 15 November 2012. Professor Austin was appointed Chair in Private Law in the Faculty of Law in November 2010. This lecture explores claims that in copyright law, the public domain is necessarily in opposition to proprietary rights, and suggests that in many contexts the incentives offered by copyright contribute to the vibrancy and volume of material that is available for downstream creativity and innovation. Drawing on his earlier work on the relationship between human rights law and intellectual property, Professor Austin's lecture advances the idea that cognisance of the human rights dimensions of intellectual property, including creators' human rights, should inform our understanding of the appropriate scope of the rights of copyright owners. The lecture concludes with a warning against the "Walmartization" of copyright.

Theoretical and Philosophical Foundations

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-56
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
Utilitarian Approach ◽  
The Public Sphere

This chapter deals with the theoretical foundation of copyright law and considers the various philosophical theories in this regard. The link between copyright law and the philosophical ideals that underpin its theory and interpretation is noted and considered within the ambits of the public sphere as proposed by Habermas (1974, p. 49). The discussion also includes an explanation of the public domain and focuses on the following theories in particular: the utilitarian approach, the public benefit theory, the natural rights theory, and the moral rights theory. The chapter concludes by comparing the theories and noting their alignment and differences.

scholarly journals A Rights-Based View of the Idea/ Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abraham Drassinower
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law

The paper offers a rights-based, Kantian interpretation of the idea/expression dichotomy in the law of copyright. It demonstrates that the idea/expression dichotomy normatively structures the relation between the parties to a copyright action in terms of their equal rights to authorship. To the extent that the defendant has not copied the plaintiff’s expression but has instead expressed an idea anew, the defendant has exercised her own authorship. The limits of the plaintiff’s right (i.e. the law’s refusal to copyright ideas) are therefore the contours of a public domain that, as a matter of equality, the plaintiff himself must be held to recognize. The public domain is not externally imposed upon but internally constitutive of authorial right. Thus the paper shows that a Kantian understanding of the fundamentals of copyright questions the perceived opposition between authorial right and public domain that informs much of contemporary copyright discourse. In so doing, the paper establishes the largely neglected possibility of a rights-based defense of the public domain.

scholarly journals “UNE CHOSE PUBLIQUE”? THE AUTHOR’S DOMAIN AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN EARLY BRITISH, FRENCH AND US COPYRIGHT LAW

2006 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 636-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane C. Ginsburg
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Industrial Complex ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Claims ◽  
Cultural Commons ◽  
The Mind

THE public domain is all the rage. It is invoked to breach copyright’s encroaching enclosure of what one might grandiloquently call the cultural commons of the mind. The heralds of our “remix culture” deploy the public domain to smash that icon of the entertainment–industrial complex, the Romantic Author. But even before the Author became Romantic, he still served as a shill for concentrated industry, then the printing–bookselling complex. Authors’ moral claims of labourious entitlement merely masked the power grab of the printers. If we speak of a grab, we imply that copyright was seised from somewhere. So whence, in this account, was copyright wrested? From the public domain.

scholarly journals Academic Special Collections and the Myths of Copyright

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Teresa Auch Schultz ◽  
Dana Miller
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
The Public ◽  
Association Of Research Libraries ◽  
Special Collections ◽  
Policy Statements ◽  
Domain 4

This study compares the copyright and use policy statements posted on the websites of the special collections of Association of Research Libraries member libraries. In spring 2018, 99 academic special collections websites were viewed, and data was collected based on the following: 1) presence and content of a general copyright statement; 2) mention of copyright owners besides the special collections; 3) presence and accuracy of statements regarding fair use and public domain; 4) policies for patron-made copies; 5) whether the special collections required its permission and/or the copyright owner’s permission to publish; 6) whether any use or license fees were charged and how clearly fees were presented. Authors analyzed whether these policies reflect copyright law or went beyond it, unnecessarily restricting the use of materials or imposing fees where rights are in question. A majority of the sites included general copyright statements, mentioned other copyright owners, and mentioned fair use, but only a minority mentioned the public domain. Just more than half restricted how patrons could use patron-made copies. About half required the special collections’ permission to publish a copy, and a fifth said any third-party owner’s permission was also required for publication.

scholarly journals Correlation of terms «orphan work» and «public domain work» in the modern copyright law

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-24
Author(s):  
Liudmyla Mamchur ◽  
Valerii Syttsevoi
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
The Public ◽  
Property Interest ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Reasonable Use

Keywords: orphan work, copyright, work digitization, public domain, propertyrights of the author, term of copyright The authors insist on the need todifferentiate the terms «orphan work» and «public domain work». It is connected withthe necessity to follow reasonable balance between the property interest of the authoror his successors and the public interest in reasonable use of the work in order to improvethe current legal field.It is substantiated that the existing copyright system, which provides to pay royaltyfor every use of the work for its author for 70 years or more, conflicts with theneeds of society in modern digital age. It is necessary to get permission from the copyrightholder to digitize a work to make it available. For orphan works it is difficult.The traditional copyright system should provide an exception for orphan works. It isformulated that permission to use such works must be granted by a specially authorizedstate body if there is any evidence that the user has taken all possible measuresto find the copyright holder, but has not been successful.Analysis of the content of theoretical and legal definitions of the terms «orphanwork» and «public domain work» shows that the presence or absence of ongoing protectionof property rights of the author is a key factor in the difference. Such rightsare still valid for orphan works, and therefore the permission of the right holder touse such a work is required. Meanwhile, the «public domain work» includes workswhich the term of copyright has expired. Therefore, the work can be used without permission.So, the approach that an orphan work becomes public domain is incorrect.On a basis of analysis of legislation conclusions is drawn that it is inexpedient touse too voluminous definition of the term «orphan work». It is argued that the systemof issuing permits for use of orphan works by the state bodies at request of a potentialuser must be defined in legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document