Khaosaeng (2019)

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

Khaosaeng (2019)
Title: The Conflicts between Copyright and the Norms of Online Re-Creations: An Empirical Analysis
Author(s): Khaosaeng, K.
Year: 2019
Citation: Khaosaeng, K. (2019) The Conflicts between Copyright and the Norms of Online Re-Creations: An Empirical Analysis. ASEAN Journal of Legal Studies, 2(1)
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The study uses two methods of data collection:

• A survey with global reach, totalling 302 respondents, and;

• Interviews with a total of 23 creators and re-creators, conducted at three pop culture conventions in London and Washington state.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • October 2014 - September 2015
Funder(s):

Abstract

“As a fundamental principle, by granting exclusive rights, copyright provides economic incentives to encourage authors and artists to express their ideas, and in that process, create a new work. As a general rule, when using a protected work, a person needs permission from the copyright holder of such work. However, this article finds that: economic interests provided by copyright are not the primary incentives for authors to create a work; and due to some obstacles, people cannot conform to the copyright rule that permission to use a copyright work is required. These conclusions are supported by an original empirical study on the social norms concerning the practice of online re-creations.”

Main Results of the Study

The study finds that copyright is not the core incentive of creation. The majority of participants reported that they re-create for enjoyment, fun and a love of the underlying work it. By contrast, monetary motivations do not play a significant role (with only 3% of respondents confirming that this is a motivating factor).

Whilst many participants would like to ask permission to re-use work (46%), in practice none have ever been able to do so due to practical obstacles. These include difficulties in communicating and negotiating with primary creators, which may result in an unwillingness to authorise or cost-prohibitive licence to re-use.

Where copying is direct, most re-creators (55%) think that payment should only be made to the primary creator where they are using the re-creation commercially and earning money from it. Where the copying is indirect, many participants (40%) think that payment is not necessary.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Whilst the study does not make any explicit policy suggestions, it concludes that:

• the law should be in alignment with the empirical nature of human creativity, and;

• efforts should be made to make obtaining permission more practicable.


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)
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: 304
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: October 2014 - September 2015


Sample size: 23
Level of aggregation: Creators
Period of material under study: October 2014 - September 2015