Difference between revisions of "Pappalardo, Aufderheide, Stevens, and Suzor (2017)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Name of Study=Pappalardo, Aufderheide, Stevens, and Suzor (2017)
 
|Name of Study=Pappalardo, Aufderheide, Stevens, and Suzor (2017)
|Author=Pappalardo, K.; Patricia Aufderheide; Stevens, J.; Nicholas Suzor;
+
|Author=Pappalardo, K.; Patricia Aufderheide; Stevens, J.; Suzor, N.;
 
|Title=Imagination foregone: A qualitative study of the reuse practices of Australian creators
 
|Title=Imagination foregone: A qualitative study of the reuse practices of Australian creators
 
|Year=2017
 
|Year=2017

Revision as of 07:57, 25 May 2020

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

Pappalardo, Aufderheide, Stevens, and Suzor (2017)
Title: Imagination foregone: A qualitative study of the reuse practices of Australian creators
Author(s): Pappalardo, K., Patricia Aufderheide, Stevens, J., Suzor, N.
Year: 2017
Citation: Pappalardo, K., Aufderheide, P., Stevens, J., and Suzor, N. (2017) Imagination foregone: A qualitative study of the reuse practices of Australian creators. Report produced for the Australian Digital Alliance.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The study consists of semi-structured interviews with 29 Australian artists, from a variety of creative backgrounds and levels of experience.
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:
  • January 2017 - April 2017
Funder(s):
  • Australian Digital Alliance

Abstract

“Between January and April 2017, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 29 Australian creators across a variety of artforms and with a range of expertise in their relevant fields. We asked participants open-ended questions about their experiences in creative practice, focusing on how legal rules and other forms of regulation influenced their work (if at all). In particular, participants were asked about their licensing and reuse practices. The aim of these interviews was to understand how creators engage with copyright law in the course of their practice, and to explore any barriers that may exist regarding how these creators choose to use copyright content in creating new cultural goods.”

Main Results of the Study

Creators are unclear about which uses are allowed under Australian copyright law, and tend import US fair use concepts instead (influenced by practices of large US OSPs such as YouTube). The uncertainty and stress caused by this lack of understanding leads to self-censorship by creators as a form of protection. This is compounded by the complexities presented by licensing practices, which have significant costs both financially and in respect of time spent. These complexities may also lead creators, particularly emerging creators, to flout copyright law by attempting to “fly under the radar”of rightsholders.Moral rights are important to individual creators. Attribution was considered by all but one interviewee to be “fundamental” to their creative practices. Furthermore, the right of integrity was echoed by interviewees who are described as anxious to ensure respect is given to other creators (usually ensured via permission, and transformativeness within their own work).Overall,the study concludes that the combination of lack of understanding, and fear of penalty, lead to “imagination foregone” in Australian creators. By creators self-censoring, the authors fear that creative capabilities may be inadvertently stifled.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Whilst the authors do not make any explicit policy recommendations, they do conclude that Australia’s current regulatory environment fosters a risk-averse creative industry, with many creators self-censoring as a result. By highlighting the voice of the creator, and the problems they encounter in using copyrighted works, the authors speculate that this may be used to inform copyright reform. For example, the authors note how policy advocation of fair dealing is on the basis that it is clear and easily understood; conversely, these findings show that creators have a very poor understanding of fair dealing in Australia.

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)?
Green-tick.png
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)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
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

{{{Dataset}}}