Schofield and Urban (2015)

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

Schofield and Urban (2015)
Title: Takedown and Today's Academic Digital Library
Author(s): Schofield B. and Urban J.
Year: 2015
Citation: Schofield B. L. and Urban J. M. Takedown and Today's Academic Digital Library (2015) UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2694731.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Erickson and Kretschmer (2018), Ibosiola et al. (2019)
About the Data
Data Description: The study uses data gathered from 11 surveys and 5 in depth interviews with individuals responsible for actioning takedown notices at academic libraries.
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?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2015
Funder(s):
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Abstract

Fuelled by recent public and private efforts to improve access to scholarly works, academic libraries and archives are increasingly digitizing their special collections and creating online repositories for scholarly works. This enhanced online presence has increased libraries’ exposure to takedown requests from rightsholders and other concerned parties. Using survey questions and interviews, we examined academic libraries’ interaction with both Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and non-DMCA takedown notices. We found that academic libraries most commonly receive non-DMCA takedown requests that are based on non-copyright issues (such as privacy) or that target materials the library itself has placed online. In general, libraries have well- developed norms and practices in place to manage these types of requests to remove material. We also found, however, that formal DMCA notices directed to libraries have historically been rare, but that this may be changing as open access repositories hosted by libraries grow. In tracing the recent experience of academic libraries that have received DMCA takedown notices targeting material in their open access repositories, we found that libraries have not yet developed norms and practices for addressing these requests. We discuss why this might be, and suggest steps libraries, publishers, and authors can take to best manage copyright conflicts while supporting libraries’ missions to preserve and provide access to knowledge.

Main Results of the Study

Although academic libraries have historically received few formal DMCA takedown requests, recent notice-sending activity, coupled with the growth of open access policies and repositories, suggests that they may receive more DMCA requests as their online offerings grow. At the same time, libraries have a large amount of experience, and thus more comfort, handling non-DMCA takedown requests.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

As libraries continue to digitize collections and grow open access repositories, their long experience with less-formal requests and their relatively well-developed norms for handling those requests can serve as a foundation for handling the potential growth in DMCA notices. In addition, the growth itself might be curtailed if stakeholders take steps to limit the need to use the DMCA notice and takedown process. Educating authors about author-friendly publishing practices, continuing to push for institutional open access policies, and developing best practices for DMCA notice handling might all help. Deliberate effort from all stakeholders can help ensure that the notice and takedown system strikes a fair balance between academic libraries’ needs to limit liability and fulfill their preservation and access missions and rightsholders’ needs for an effective method for removing infringing content from library platforms.


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)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Green-tick.png
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)
Green-tick.png
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: 11
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: Not stated


Sample size: 5
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: Not stated