Campagnolo et al. (2018)

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

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

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) 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

Campagnolo et al. (2018)
Title: Revolution remixed? The emergence of Open Content Film-making as a viable component within the mainstream film industry
Author(s): Gian Marco Campagnolo, Evi Giannatou, Michael Franklin, James Stewart, Robin Williams
Year: 2018
Citation: Campagnolo, G.M., Giannatou, E., Franklin, M., Stewart, J., and Williams, R. (2018) Revolution remixed? The emergence of Open Content Film-making as a viable component within the mainstream film industry. Information, Communication and Society, pp1-18. ISSN 1369-118X
Link(s): Definitive
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The study is the second part of a longitudinal study of open content filmmakers. Data are composed of semi-structured interviews and participant observations from several European countries. A Biography of Artefacts and Practices framework/perspective was adopted, a type of longitudinal ethnographic method.
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:
  • June - October 2014
Funder(s):
  • CREATe

Abstract

“Our previous study of the Open Content Film-making (OCF) community Revolution Postponed? Tracing the development and limitations of open content filmmaking, Information, Communication & Society, (10.1080/1369118X.2018.1464590) had shown how early expectations that Creative Commons (CC) licences would enable a viable alternative to mainstream film production, comparable to free/libre open source software (FLOSS), were challenged, in particular, by the difficulties experienced in establishing viable livelihoods with OCF. A narrative of the apparent failure of OCF may be premature, however. This paper reports on a subsequent study of how OCF practices became adopted as mundane elements in a film production and distribution system that itself has been, and continues to be, dramatically changed by digitisation. These developments broke down the dichotomy that had been drawn between existing commercial practices and visions of a new system of decentralised, non-proprietary, peer production. First, we show that OCF practices are conceptualised by our informants in relation to the mainstream independent film industry. Second, we account for how OCF tools and practices become adopted within the mainstream independent film production/distribution system. These observations highlight that limiting the scope of investigation (e.g., by only undertaking short term ‘snapshot’ studies, limited to particular settings or groups) may yield flawed interpretations based on narrow viewpoints and premature judgements. Instead, we flag the need to extend research – both longitudinally and across a range of settings/viewpoints – applying methodological templates from the Biography of Artefacts and Practices perspective (Hyysalo, 2010; Pollock & Williams, 2008).”

Main Results of the Study

Open content filmmakers increasingly conceptualise openness by relating it to mainstream industry practices. For example, some filmmakers perceive Creative Commons licensing as a means of “branding” their work, effectively increasing it’s reach because of it’s openness (e.g. through volunteers translating, adapting etc.). Others strategically licence their work (e.g. Creative Commons for digital works, and all-rights-reserved for televisual works), to avoid complex collecting society systems.

The study also examines perspectives of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, and again finds that open content filmmakers tend to evaluate openness in conjunction with the mainstream industry. Some filmmakers perceive crowdfunding as a way of protecting their integrity as independent filmmakers, ensuring that no private or government funding will compromise their neutrality. Others find the system problematic, claiming that crowdsourcing gives governments incentives to cut funding initiatives for filmmakers.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The authors do not make any explicit policy recommendations, and instead highlight the need for further longitudinal ethnographic research, so as to produce accurate data in a changing technological landscape.



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)?
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)
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)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
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