Aufderheide, Sinnreich, Imperiale, and Silvernail (2016)

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Revision as of 15:17, 22 August 2023 by Gabriele Cifrodelli (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{MainSource |Source={{Source |Name of Study=Aufderheide, Sinnreich, Imperiale, and Silvernail (2016) |Author=Aufderheide, P.; Sinnreich, A.; Imperiale, L.; Silvernail, C. |Ti...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing Video game publishing Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Aufderheide, Sinnreich, Imperiale, and Silvernail (2016)
Title: Norms-Shifting on Copyright and Fair Use in The Visual Arts Community
Author(s): Aufderheide, P., Sinnreich, A., Imperiale, L., Silvernail, C.
Year: 2016
Citation: Aufderheide, P., Sinnreich, A., Imperiale, L., Silvernail, C. (2016). Norms-Shifting on Copyright and Fair Use in The Visual Arts Community. Visual Arts Review (Winter 2018).
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The US-based organisation College Art Association (CAA) sent a survey (coded and fielded through Qualtrics platform) to its - more than - 26000 members, and around 2400 responses were registered, so it was a 9% rate.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2015-2016
Funder(s):

Abstract

“This study tracks changes in behavior and attitude among visual arts professionals after the development of a code of best practices in the copyright doctrine of fair use. A survey of 2,400 professionals fielded only months after its publication demonstrated broad awareness of the code, informing practice and inspiring efforts to spread awareness. The greatest degree of awareness and change was among editors, several of whose publications altered their copyright policies. Professional and social networks were critical to spreading awareness. Despite a continuing lack of confidence in interpreting the law among individual professionals, the existence of a code contributed to significant change in norms and practices via institutional adoption. This study demonstrates that codes of best practices can affect field behavior, but that change depends on publicity, formal education, continuing support for early adopters, and institutional policy changes”.

Main Results of the Study

Even after the enactment of the code of best practices on fair use, participants to the survey kept respecting and taking into high consideration copyright, and they mostly relied on seeking permission rather than on fair use. However, when unable to obtain permission, visual arts professionals were now more inclined to apply fair use, although their ultimate preference was to make use of materials located in the public domain, by often modifying their creative choices. In terms of visibility and awareness of the code, respondents stated that the code was deeply discussed among CAA’s members (especially through CAA conferences and publications), with professionals that were more experienced in the field having more knowledge of the code itself. In general, the authors noticed that “with knowledge of fair use comes the power to employ it”, although there is still considerable confusion on how to properly apply fair use and this can hinder creativity practices.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

[[Has intervention-response::The authors believe that when social organisations and institutions, such as museums, universities, and libraries, change and improve their policies, individuals can consequently change their behaviour. And, simultaneously, institutional organisations can do that when individuals make them aware of such change. Therefore, there is the need of a virtuous circle where “[i]nstitutional policy makers and informal social networks must work synergistically to bring about lasting change”.]]


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Green-tick.png
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Green-tick.png
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

{{{Dataset}}}