scholarly journals The "Creating Around" Paradox

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Law ◽  
The Creation

In his article on Creating Around Copyright, Joseph Fishman argues that the constraints imposed by copyright law promote the creativity of subsequent follow-on authors. He suggests that by limiting creative choices, copyright exclusivity may actually enhances the output of follow-on authors by requiring them to "create around" existing works. Yet embedded in Professor Fishman's theory is a paradox that threatens to disable the putative benefits of creating around. Specifically, the conditions that are necessary for creating around are the same conditions that we would expect to lead to licensing of previously existing works, rather than to the creation of new ones. In other words, it appears that creating around can only occur when we would expect it not to occur. In this essay I illuminate this problem, showing how the logic of Fishman's argument leads inevitably to this paradox, and I offer several suggestions as to how one might escape the creating around paradox.

Digital Repatriation

2018 ◽  
pp. 530-552
Author(s):  
Alex Perullo
Keyword(s):  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Digital Collections ◽  
Limited Access ◽  
Local Space ◽  
The Creation

This essay makes two points about digital collections. The first recognizes problems that emerge as archives present indigenous content online. In uploading indigenous songs, speeches, and documents, an archive allows that material to move from a local space with limited access to an international repository with many points of access. This chapter examines conflicts that can occur with this action, including those involving copyright law, fair use, and ethics. A second point of this chapter revolves around technology and repatriation. If repatriation means the return of material to a country of origin, then online archives never fully commit to this task. The material typically remains preserved on servers and in its original forms away from indigenous communities. Despite these ethical, legal, and technological concerns, archives should encourage the creation of digital collections as part of repatriation given the desire by many indigenous communities to preserve and promote their traditions.

Copyright Support Structures

2014 ◽  
pp. 81-93
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Law ◽  
Government Support ◽  
Support Structures ◽  
Australian Government ◽  
New Material ◽  
The Creation

This chapter deals with government and other support structures available to authors internationally and nationally in relation to the enforcement of their copyright and funding. It provides an overview of how the Australian government support structures interact with equivalent global structures and how these mechanisms are utilised to supplement authors’ incomes. These structures rely on the premise that copyright law creates incentives for people to invest their time, talent, and other resources in the creation of new material that benefits society and include government support structures such as grants as well as licensing schemes such as the Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), Public Lending Rights (PLR), and Educational Lending Rights (ELR).

Copyright Issues Relevant to the Creation of a Digital Archive

2003 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
June M. Besek
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Law ◽  
Digital Content ◽  
Digital Archive ◽  
Basic Information ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Convenient Means ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Long Term Preservation ◽  
Property Regime

The collection and long-term preservation of digital content pose challenges to the intellectual property regime within which libraries and archives are accustomed to working. How to achieve an appropriate balance between copyright owners and users is a topic of ongoing debate in legal and policy circles. This paper describes copyright rights and exceptions and highlights issues potentially involved in the creation of a nonprofit digital archive. The paper is necessarily very general, since many decisions concerning the proposed archive's scope and operation have not yet been made. The purpose of an archive (e.g., to ensure preservation or to provide an easy and convenient means of access), its subject matter, and the manner in which it will acquire copies, as well as who will have access to the archive, from where, and under what conditions, are all factors critical to determining the copyright implications for works to be included in it. The goal of this paper is to provide basic information about the copyright law for those developing such an archive and thereby enable them to recognize areas in which it could impinge on copyright rights and to plan accordingly. After initial decisions have been made, a more detailed analysis will be possible. As the paper indicates, there are a number of areas that would benefit from further research. Such research may not yield definitive legal answers, but could narrow the issues and suggest strategies for proceeding.

scholarly journals Taking Access Seriously

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-269
Author(s):  
BJ Ard
Keyword(s):  
Market Failure ◽  
Distinct Type ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Participatory Culture ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Policy Guidance

Copyright is conventionally understood as serving the dual purposes of providing incentives for the creation of new works and access to the resulting works. In most analysis of copyright, however, creation takes priority. When access is considered, it is often in the context of how access relates back to the creation of new works. Largely missing is an account of the value of access on its own terms. So what is the place of access in copyright law and policy? A set of cases dealing with copyright owners’ attempts to enjoin the markets created by new playback and distribution technologies is instructive. These decisions—where the courts refused to enforce copyright where the owners attempted to shut down a market rather than participate in it—have been criticized for their un- clear policy guidance and lack of doctrinal grounding. We can reconcile these cases with copyright policy by focusing on access. These cases provide rich examples showing how expanded access advances copyright’s higher-order goals of promoting a more democratic and participatory culture. Focusing on access also provides a means for bringing doctrinal coherence to these cases through the fair-use defense. The courts permitted the use of copyrighted works in new markets despite the copyright owners’ objections because these markets could expand public access without diminishing the copyright industries’ creative incentives. Indeed, copyright owners often found the markets profitable after being forced to enter them. Copyright owners’ market refusal in these scenarios is a distinct type of market failure, and fair-use doctrine allows courts to correct it.

scholarly journals Work of collaboration in the creation of literary works under the legislation of Ukraine and France

2021 ◽  
pp. 24-30
Author(s):  
Yuliia Kedia
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Literary Work ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Joint Work ◽  
Literary Works ◽  
Collective Work ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Definition Of

Kedya Y. Work of collaboration in the creation of literary works under the legislation of Ukraine and France. This article highlights particular legal frameworks, definition and practice of applicability of co-authorship (works done in collaboration) by publishers and co-authors. In addition, we will cover the differences between the co-authorship upon creation of a work and collective works. The analysis is based, inter alia, on comparison of French Ukrainian laws, thus, giving an opportunityto crystalize particular shortcomings and advantages of set forth by Ukrainian laws related to above matters.The research formulates a comprehensive overview of the defining and basic rulesof co-authorship, comparative analysis of (a) collective works with (b) works of collaboration,as well as analysis of shortcomings and advantages set forth by Ukrainianlaws. The author reviews and analyzes main provisions in Ukrainian legislation, suggestspossible solutions of the main problems, deliberates ways of laws developmentin future. The paper is based on author’s professional experience.Main conclusions of comparative analysis of legal regulation definition of co-authorship definition in Ukraine and France are as follows: •According to Intellectual Property Code of France only physical persons may be considered co-authors, including literary works. At the same time, Ukrainian law is silent on this matter. It must be noted that according to the Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights» (the «Copyright Law»), co-authors are persons whose joint work creates a literary work. At the same time, the definition given to the author by said law limits creative participation to physical person;•The Copyright Law defines the concept and set forth the pre-conditions for co-authorship. However, unlike the French Code of Intellectual Property (Article L113-2), no due attention has been paid to the concept of a collective work. The authors believe that it is advisable to supplement Article 19 of the Copyright Law by (i) the definition of a collective work and (ii) to distinguish between the concepts of a composite work and a collective work;•It is necessary to harmonize the conclusion of an agreement between co-authors in the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Copyright Law;•Research uncovered certain flaws in the conclusion of agreements between co-authorson creation of a collective work;•Examining the Intellectual Property Code of France was helpful for finding the difference between collective works and co-authorship of a particular work.Key words: work of collaboration, composite work, collective work, copyright, intellectual rights, literary work

scholarly journals The Darknet - Age of Peer Production

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian-Constantin ROȘOAIA ◽  
Zaharia-Ioan IONESCU
Keyword(s):  
Digital Media ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Digital Culture ◽  
Peer Production ◽  
Direct Proportion ◽  
Digital Revolution ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Creation

We are in the midst of a digital revolution. In this “Age of Peer Production” armies of amateur participants demand the freedom to rip, remix and share their own digital culture. Aided by the newest iteration of file sharing networks, digital media users now have the option to retreat underground, by using secure, private, and anonymous file sharing networks, to share freely and breathe new life into digital media. These underground networks, collectively termed “The Darknet” will grow in scope, resilience and effectiveness in direct proportion to increasing digital restrictions the public finds untenable. The Darknet has been called the public’s great equalizing force in the digital millennium, because it will serve as “a counterbalancing force and bulwark to defend digital liberties” against forces lobbying for stronger copyrights and increased technological controls. This article proposes a digital use exception to existing copyright law to provide adequate compensation to authors while promoting technological innovation, and the creation and dissemination of new works. Although seemingly counterintuitive, content producers, publishers, and distributors wishing to profit from their creations must relinquish their control over digital media in order to survive the Darknet era.

Free and Open Source Software Movements as Agents of an Alternative Use of Copyright Law

2017 ◽  
pp. 253-270
Author(s):  
Pedro Pina
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Digital World ◽  
Digital Network ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Access To Knowledge ◽  
The Right ◽  
Collaboration Platforms

Digital technology produced a move from a performative model to a player-as producer paradigm since it has potentiated user-generated transformative uses of intellectual works. In fact, sharing, sampling, remixing and creating new derivative content through digital network collaboration platforms are today pillars of the so-called “age of remix”. However, when unauthorized, such activities may constitute copyright infringement since the making available right and the right to make new derivative works are exclusive rights granted by copyright law. A restrictive exercise of exclusive rights may hinder the implementation of online platforms envisioned to facilitate access to knowledge and to potentiate the creation of new works. The present chapter analyzes the creation the importance of online communities of practice using free/open source software licenses like GNU GPL or Creative Commons Licenses as agents of an alternative and less rigid exercise of the powers granted by copyright law in favor of a freer system of creation and dissemination of creative works in the digital world.

Real Copyright Reform

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Litman
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Law ◽  
Entry Barriers ◽  
The Creation

A copyright system is designed to produce an ecology that nurtures the creation, dissemination and enjoyment of works of authorship. When it works well, it encourages creators to generate new works, assists intermediaries in disseminating them widely, and supports readers, listeners and viewers in enjoying them. If the system poses difficult entry barriers to creators, imposes demanding impediments on intermediaries, or inflicts burdensome conditions and hurdles on readers, then the system fails to achieve at least some of its purposes. The current U.S. copyright statute is flawed in all three respects. In this article, I explore how the current copyright system is failing its intended beneficiaries. The foundation of copyright law’s legitimacy, I argue, derives from its evident benefits for creators and for readers. That foundation is badly cracked, in large part because of the perception that modern copyright law is not especially kind to either creators or to readers; instead, it concentrates power in the hands of the intermediaries who control the conduits between creators and their audience. Those intermediaries have recently used their influence and their copyright rights to obstruct one another’s exploitation of copyrighted works. I argue that the concentration of copyright rights in the hands of intermediaries made more economic sense in earlier eras than it does today. The key to real copyright reform, I suggest, is to reallocate copyright’s benefits to give more rights to creators, greater liberty to readers, and less control to copyright intermediaries.This article was published in the Iowa Law Review in 2010.

Copyright and the music business

Popular Music ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Frith
Keyword(s):  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Music Industry ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Music Business ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law

For the music industry the age of manufacture is now over. Companies (and company profits) are no longer organised around making things but depend on the creation of rights. In the industry's own jargon, each piece of music represents ‘a basket of rights’; the company task is to exploit as many of these rights as possible, not just those realised when it is sold in recorded form to the public, but also those realised when it is broadcast on radio or television, used on a film, commercial or video soundtrack, and so on. Musical rights (copyrights, performing rights) are the basic pop commodity and to understand the music business in the 1980s we have to understand how these rights work. In this article, then, I begin and end with record companies' uses of copyright law and ideology to defend themselves against current technological and political threats to income, but I also want to ask questions about how the law itself defines music and determines the possibilities of musical ‘exploitation’. And this means putting contemporary arguments (for and against the blank tape levy, for example) in historical perspective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document