Hooper and Lynch (2012b)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

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

Hooper and Lynch (2012b)
Title: Copyright works: Streamlining copyright licensing for the digital age
Author(s): Hooper, R., Lynch, R.
Year: 2012
Citation: Hooper, R., & Lynch, R. (2012). Copyright works: Streamlining copyright licensing for the digital age. Intellectual Property Office: Newport.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: This study makes an extensive series of policy recommendations based on a two-phase prior study: Phase 1 – the diagnostic phase – concluded that a number of issues existed with copyright licensing which meant that it was not entirely fit for purpose for the digital age: Hooper & Lynch (2012a) Phase 2: Phase 2 – the solutions phase – sought to identify workable solutions to address the problems identified in Phase 1.
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?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2011-2012
Funder(s):
  • IPO

Abstract

Following a recommendation from Professor Ian Hargreaves to establish a cross sectoral Digital Copyright Exchange, the Government appointed Richard Hooper CBE in November 2011 to lead an independent review. The review was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 – the diagnostic phase – concluded that a number of issues existed with copyright licensing which meant that it was not entirely fit for purpose for the digital age. Phase 2 – the solutions phase – sought to identify workable solutions to address the problems identified in Phase 1.

Main Results of the Study

The main recommendation of this report is the creation of a not-for-profit, industry led Copyright Hub based in the UK that links interoperably and scalably to the growing national and international network of private and public sector digital copyright exchanges, rights registries and other copyright-related databases, using agreed cross-sectoral and cross-border data building blocks and standards, based on voluntary, opt-in, non-exclusive and pro-competitive principles.

The Copyright Hub will serve in the UK and beyond a wide range of copyright licensors (rights holders, creators and rights owners in both commercial and cultural worlds) on the supply side and a wide range of copyright licensees/users on the demand side.

"If the industry and public authorities follow the recommendations in this report, we believe that this will put the UK in a leadership position in relation to innovative solutions for copyright licensing."

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

We recommend that:

  • Where international standard identifiers exist, e.g. in the publishing and music industries, that they should be used accurately and consistently to identify the work, its creator(s) and the accompanying rights.
  • Where such identifiers currently do not exist, e.g. for cross-media content and in the images industry, that relevant organisations work together, drawing on existing systems and practices, to agree an approach that works for the industries as a whole.
  • Recognising that the stripping of metadata on a commercial scale can already constitute a criminal offence as well as a civil infringement, we call on all web publishing organisations that regularly use and resize pictures, such as broadcasters and newspapers, to agree a voluntary code of practice in which they publicly commit to: (1) end the practice of stripping metadata from images and (2) refuse to use images for which there is no metadata attached.
  • And to the extent that it seems appropriate, we recommend that the Government works with the images industry, technology developers and other interested parties to find a practicable solution to this problem.
  • In the UK and internationally it is generally agreed that the databases of who owns what rights for what in which country are not fit for purpose for the demands of the digital age even if they were adequate for the less complex demands of the analogue age. We are supporting two main database projects which will also act as exemplars of what good looks like: the Global Repertoire Database in music publishing where Performing Rights Society (PRS for Music) has been a prime motivator and the Global Recording Database with a similar role played by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL). The aspiration is for collecting societies around the world to be able to draw on one authoritative database which is kept updated (a key requirement for rights databases), replacing multiple databases where the data conflicts and is not kept up to date.
  • We are supporting the Linked Content Coalition (LCC), an international project that emanated from the European Publishers Council, but is now moving into new sectors beyond publishing. The LCC is all about developing a common language and a set of communications standards so proper interoperability is achieved, a very real and necessary building block for the Copyright Hub and its associated databases and DCEs.
  • We recommend that: The organisations engaged in licensing content to schools and colleges should offer these licences for sale through an intermediary or aggregator thus in effect creating a ‘one stop shop’ for licensing for educational institutions. This will reduce the number of individual organisations that educational institutions have to deal with to obtain licences (currently around twelve) and should reduce the transaction costs involved in this process.
  • We recommend: That the music industry continues to find ways to make the licensing of new digital services over the fixed and mobile internet easier, more automated where appropriate and more accessible. This is and will be done by new types of blanket licensing, by direct licensing and by combinations of blanket and direct licensing. The challenge of direct licensing is to keep the number of different organisations a licensee has to deal with to a sensible minimum. Aggregators and intermediaries play and will play an important role in meeting this challenge.
  • That the UK music industry working with the appropriate European organisations continues to pioneer easier ways of licensing across the single European market reducing the number of licensors wherever possible that prospective licensees have to deal with, thus helping to create a true single market across Europe for music.
  • We support the ARROW7 and ARROW Plus projects which demonstrate how due diligence in relation to orphan works can be done in an automated way by linking and searching libraries around the world. We especially support the possibility of the technology being usable beyond publishing, for example in the images industry where images without metadata quickly become orphan.
  • We recommend that the industries, especially the audiovisual industry where repertoire imbalance is the biggest issue, continue to reduce the problem of repertoire imbalance between the digital and physical worlds and thus counteract the perception of the problem.

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)
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)
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

Sample size: 117
Level of aggregation: Responses to calls for evidence
Period of material under study: 2012


Sample size: 90
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 2011-12