Permission error

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{MainSource |Source={{Source |Name of Study=Marshall and Shipman (2019) |Author=Catherine C. Marshall; Frank M. Shipman; |Title=The Ownership and Control of Online Photos and...")
(No difference)

Revision as of 20:25, 13 August 2019

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

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

Marshall and Shipman (2019)
Title: The Ownership and Control of Online Photos and Game Data: Patterns, Trends, and Keeping Pace with Evolving Circumstances
Author(s): Catherine C. Marshall, Frank M. Shipman
Year: 2019
Citation: Marshall, C.C. & Shipman, F.M. (2019) The Ownership and Control of Online Photos and Game Data: Patterns, Trends, and Keeping Pace with Evolving Circumstances. 2019 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries
Link(s): Definitive
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The study consists of a re-run of surveys previously conducted in 2010 through 2013 concerning user-generated content in photographs and games content. Participants were recruited through Mechanical Turk, totalling 235 respondents to the photo study and 220 respondents to the games study.
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:
  • August 2010
  • January 2013
Funder(s):

Abstract

“Using a series of media type-specific studies, we have identified social norms associated with the ownership and control of user-contributed content and data stored in online collections. These norms constrain everyday reuse of this material, as well as prefiguring public reactions to institutional archiving efforts. In this paper, we describe two studies, one of photos and the other of multiplayer games, originally run in 2010 and 2013 respectively, that we reran in 2018 to establish whether specific norms are stable or evolving. Analysis of data from 455 new participants, 235 collected via the photo study and 220 via the games study, revealed that many previous results are stable, but there are important changes too that seem to stem from increased online experience, as well as additional experience with the media type in question. Overall, the barriers to institutional archiving of collections of user-contributed online material seem to be diminishing over time. At the same time, participants exhibit a greater sensitivity to privacy issues-along with some privacy fatigue (which has resulted in a looser grasp on ownership)-and more sophisticated reasoning about potential reuse situations, both benign and malicious.”

Main Results of the Study

The study notes many changes in attitudes towards reuse over a five year period:

• Respondents to the newest survey reported sharing almost double the number of photos online as respondents five years previously (42% reporting sharing tens of thousands versus 25%). However, methods of sharing have consolidated considerably with 62% of respondents only using one or two methods of sharing as opposed to 36% in 2010.

• Respondents demonstrated an increasingly sophisticated knowledge about copyright, including on the use of stock photos, accreditation and respect for watermarks, and the use of Creative Commons licences.

• Reuse of memes have come to be perceived differently than reuse of other photography; sharing of memes is seen as unproblematic, and have become a “visual vocabulary” for which no strong sense of ownership exists.

• Respondents demonstrate a greater sensitivity to privacy issues than in previous years, including e.g. bystanders in photography, or recordings of other players discussions in MMO games. Nonetheless, sharing of content with ‘bystanders’ is more readily accepted, particularly in the gaming community as streaming to live audiences becomes standard practice (e.g. eSports).

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not offer any explicit policy implications.



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)
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