Difference between revisions of "Kretschmer and Harwick (2007)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
(Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
(Blanked the page)
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
|Name of Study=Kretschmer and Harwick (2007)
|Author=Martin Kretschmer, Philip Hardwick
|Title=Authors’ Earnings from Copyright and Non-Copyright Sources: A Survey of 25,000 British and German Writers
|Full Citation=Kretschmer, M. and Hardwick, P., 2007. Authors’ earnings from copyright and non-copyright sources. A survey of, 25.
|Abstract=The 2001 Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC) is introduced thus: “If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive appropriate reward for the use of their work…” (Recital 10). “A rigorous, effective system for the protection of copyright and related rights is one of the main ways of ensuring that European cultural creativity and production receive the necessary resources and of safeguarding the independence and dignity of artistic creators and performers” (Recital 11).
This study shows quite conclusively that current copyright law has empirically failed to meet these aims. The rewards to best-selling writers are indeed high but as a profession, writing has remained resolutely unprosperous.
For less than half of the 25,000 surveyed authors in Germany and the UK, writing is the main source of income. Typical earnings of professional authors are less than half of the national median wage in Germany, and one third below the national median wage in the UK. 60% of professional writers hold a second job of some kind.
Throughout the study, we have attempted to differentiate between copyright and non-copyright earnings. We also have analysed for the first time systematically the distribution of income in a creative profession, calculating the Gini Coefficient for all earnings data collected (Gini=0: every writer earns the same/perfect equality; Gini=1: one earner earns everything/perfect inequality).
After this study, copyright policy cannot remain the same. Still, for the purposes of this report, we have resisted drawing policy implications. Instead we have attempted to shape the raw data into a form that will allow multiple analyses. Emphasis has been given to providing context from statistical data held by governments, and from a comprehensive review of previous studies.
|Authentic Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2619649
|Reference=Kretschmer (2005);
|Discipline=K00: General, L82: Entertainment • Media, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
|Description of Data=The study uses data from the responses to  survey issued to 25,000 writers.
|Data Year=2005
|Data Type=Primary data
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Qualitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences), Qualitative content/text mining
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining), Qualitative Analysis Methods, Qualitative Coding / Sorting (e.g. of interview data)
|Industry=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing;
|Country=Germany; United Kingdom;
|Government or policy=No
|Literature review=No
|Funded By=The study was funded by the UK Authors’ Licensing & Collecting Society (ALCS);

Latest revision as of 16:59, 27 February 2017