Erickson and Kretschmer (2018)

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

Erickson and Kretschmer (2018)
Title: “This Video is Unavailable”: Analysing Copyright Takedown of User-Generated Content on YouTube
Author(s): Kristofer Erickson, Martin Kretschmer
Year: 2018
Citation: Erickson, K. and Kretschmer, M. (2018) “This Video is Unavailable”: Analysing Copyright Takedown of User-Generated Content on YouTube. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 9(1)
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Erickson and Kretschmer (2019), Strzelecki (2018)
About the Data
Data Description: The original dataset of 1,839 YouTube music parody videos was collected in 2012. In January 2013, and December 2016, the research team collected takedown data to determine whether the videos from the initial dataset were still available. Unavailable videos were assessed on whether they were removed for copyright reasons, or otherwise unknown reasons. Thereafter, four groups of factors were identified which potentially influenced takedown decisions, namely (1) commercial factors, (2) moral/artistic factors, (3) cultural factors, and (4) behavioural factors.
Data Type: Primary and 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:
  • 2012-2016
Funder(s):

Abstract

"What factors lead a copyright owner to request removal of potentially infringing user-generated content? So-called “notice-and-takedown” measures are provided in the United States under Section 512 of the U.S. Copyright Act (as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998) and enabled in the European Union under the Directive on Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC). While the combination of limiting liability (“safe harbor”) and notice-and-takedown procedures was originally conceived as a means of balancing innovation with the interests of rightholders, there has been limited empirical study of their effects.

This research investigates factors that motivate takedown of user-generated content by copyright owners. We study takedowns within an original dataset of 1,839 YouTube music video parodies observed between January 2012 and December 2016. We find an overall rate of takedowns within the sample of 32.9% across the 4-year period. We use a Cox proportional hazards model to investigate the factors that lead to removal of videos. The variables analysed include commercial substitution, artistic/moral concerns, cultural differences between firms and YouTube uploader practices.

The main finding is that policy concerns frequently raised by rightholders are not associated with statistically significant patterns of action. For example, the potential for reputational harm from parodic use does not appear to predict takedown behavior. Neither does commercial popularity of the original music track trigger a systematic response from rightholders. Instead, music genre and production values emerge as significant factors."

Main Results of the Study

• The commercial success of parodies are negatively correlated with the risk of takedown, suggesting that commercial substitutability is not a factor in determining removal. Similarly, videos which have higher production values are less likely to be removed.

• Videos which demonstrate a clear parodic intent are less likely to be removed. This suggests that rightsholders are less concerned about risks of reputational damage, or derogatory treatment, provided there is a clear “target” of attack.

• Pop, hip hop, and electronic music parody videos are more likely to be subject to takedown requests (as opposed to more traditional, or rock genres of music).

• Videos which are guised as parodies, with lack of clear parodic intent, are more likely to be removed. This includes verbatim copying of original tracks, and karaoke covers. Such videos are also correlated with lower production values.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Rightsholders stated policy concerns in regards to parodies typically revolve around concerns of commercial substitutabiltiy, or risk of reputational harm (and subsequent loss of potential new markets). This study evidences that neither of these factors are positively correlated with takedown behaviours. As such, the introduction of new policies (such as automated pre-upload filtering) should be approached with caution until further information is ascertained about the complex decision-making behaviours of rightsholders.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
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)
Green-tick.png

Datasets