Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (2016)

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (2016)
Title: Response to Article 11 of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, entitled ‘Protection of press publications concerning digital uses’ on behalf of thirty seven professors and leading scholars of Intellectual Property, Information Law and Digital Economy
Author(s): Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law
Year: 2016
Citation: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (2016), Response to Article 11 of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, entitled ‘Protection of press publications concerning digital uses’ on behalf of thirty seven professors and leading scholars of Intellectual Property, Information Law and Digital Economy
Link(s): Definitive
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The paper critiques proposed changes to EU copyright law by critiquing the proposed changed in the context of data presented in European Commission Impact Assessment on the Modernisation of EU Copyright Rules.
Data Type: Secondary 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:
  • 2016
Funder(s):

Abstract

We, the undersigned group of thirty seven professors and leading scholars of Intellectual Property, Information Law and Digital Economy, are responding to the IPO’s request for views in relation to the above. Although many of us have comments on various elements in the proposed package, this response is limited to Article 11 of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, entitled ‘Protection of press publications concerning digital uses.’

The proposed right is apparently intended to offer press publishers three benefits: (i) to increase returns on their investments; (ii) to simplify licensing; (iii) to render enforcement easier. The evidence supporting the first proposition, that the new right will increase returns, is speculative, based upon wishful-thinking and is contradicted by experience with similar initiatives in Germany and Spain (which have yielded no licences or payments). As regards (ii) and (iii), the proposal fails to consider alternative strategies to reduce the supposed impediments to licensing and enforcement. As a result, we believe the proposed right is unnecessary, undesirable, would introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty and be unlikely to achieve anything apart from adding to the complexity and cost of operating in the copyright environment. We elaborate these objections over the following paragraphs, and in an appendix explain the very considerable concerns we have over the definition of ‘press publication’ in Article 1 of the Proposed Directive.

We hope the UK Government will feel able to oppose the Commission’s proposal.

Main Results of the Study

The main results of this response are:

  • The evidence supporting the first proposition, that the new right will increase returns, is speculative, based upon wishful-thinking and is contradicted by experience with similar initiatives in Germany and Spain (which have yielded no licences or payments).
  • The proposal fails to consider alternative strategies to reduce the supposed impediments to licensing and enforcement. As a result, we believe the proposed right is unnecessary, undesirable, would introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty and be unlikely to achieve anything apart from adding to the complexity and cost of operating in the copyright environment.
  • The definition of 'press publication' in the proposal ultimately creates a subject matter of unacceptably uncertain, and very possibly awesome, breadth. It is not fit for purpose.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The response concludes, "it important that the UK emphasises the importance of a coherent, justified and evidenced-based policy making process for copyright in the interests of society as a whole (authors, content holders, intermediaries, users and consumers)."

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)
Green-tick.png
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)
Green-tick.png
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)
Green-tick.png

Datasets