Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017)

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

Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017)
Title: Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence
Author(s): Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, Pierre-Carl Langlais
Year: 2017
Citation: Dulong de Rosnay, M. and Langlais, P. (2017) Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence. Internet Policy Review Vol. 6(1)
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Articles from Google News (115) and Europresse (136) were extracted for statistical analysis, namley to determine the impact the Wikipedian communities influenced freedom of panorama debates in the media. Text mining techniques were then used on both the French and English articles using the Reinert method to establish the wider semantic structures on the discussion of freedom of panorama. This is combined with legal analysis of the principle, and overview of policy controversies within the EU.
Data Type: Primary and Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: Yes
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2015
Funder(s):
  • None, however please note per the study: “One of the authors is a founding member and former president of the Communia association for the digital public domain. The other author is a member of Wikimedia France. Both associations are advocating in favour of a freedom of panorama exception.”

Abstract

"Freedom of panorama, an exception to copyright law, is the legal right, in some countries, to publish pictures of artworks which are in public space. A controversy emerged at the time of the discussions towards the revision of the 2001 European Copyright Directive, opposing free knowledge communities as advocates of the public domain, and authors’ collecting societies aiming at preserving their constituents’ income. The article decrypts the legal framework and political implications of a topic which has been polarising copyright reform lobbyists, and analyses its development within the public debate since the XIXth century. Articulating legal analysis with text mining, this article aims at contributing to the policy debate."

Main Results of the Study

• French media discussions in national dailies, free dailies and specialised outlet media indicate a frequent reference to the Wikimedian community in connection with freedom of panorama debates. The author states that the close and distant readings of these clusters indicate a major influence of the Wikimedian community in shaping news discourse on freedom of panorama.

• English articles have less defined clusters, as Wikimedians were not the only competing group in discussions of freedom of panorama (including, e.g. the UKIP party). Unlike France, here is no comparable influence of Wikimedians on news debate, and instead freedoms of panorama controversies were more likely to be referenced by political groups for specific agendas.

• News coverage between the two countries diverges, despite the transnational nature of Wikipedia. The author attributes such differences in cluster shapes to a more coherent French discourse in pursuit of implementation of a new law (as opposed to the defence of an existing one).

• The author also notes that no article surveyed was clearly in favour of protecting publicly displayed art, instead appearing neutral or pro-freedom of panorama.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The author concludes that whilst harmonisation of the exception of panorama is unlikely under current directive revisions, there are nonetheless several policy options:

• Freedom of panorama excepted for non-commercial uses only, or alternatively to become a limitation with a levy enforced by collective collection societies. The author notes that this change may curtail the broader exceptions currently in force in certain countries.

• Development of national subsidies (akin to France’s open access policies in scientific publications).

• Recognition of Wikipedia as a public service/memory institution which would benefit from a specific exception for freedom of panorama (and which could not be transmitted for commercial re-use).



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)
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