Van Eechoud (2017)
Contents
Source Details
van Eechoud (2017) | |
Title: | A publisher’s intellectual property right: Implications for freedom of expression, authors and open content policies |
Author(s): | van Eechoud, M. |
Year: | 2017 |
Citation: | van Eechoud, M (2017), A publisher’s intellectual property right: implications for freedom of expression, authors and open content policies, Research paper for OpenForum Europe: https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/OFE_Implications_of_publishers_right.pdf |
Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: | Bently et al. (2017) |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | |
Data Type: | Secondary 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?: | Yes |
Time Period(s) of Collection: | |
Funder(s): |
|
Abstract
"The proposed Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (COM(2016)593) of July 2016 would introduce a EU wide new intellectual property right for publishers of press publications, or ‘PIP’. Publishers would have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit any reproduction (in whole or in part, direct or indirect) and making available to the public of ‘press publications’, for a period of 20 years. This study examines the justifications for the proposed new PIP, and assesses how it would fit in the EU copyright framework. In this study, special attention is paid to the freedom of expression dimension, for two reasons. One is that the most important justification advanced in support of a publisher’s right is that it promotes a sustainable quality press and media pluralism. The vital role that the press play in democratic societies as public watchdog and forum for public debate — is a key consideration — in the interpretation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The second reason is that the introduction of an intellectual property right, i.e., an exclusive right to control information flows, itself constitutes an interference with freedom of expression. The main recommendation is that the EU legislator should elaborate a clear assessment of what pressing social need a PIP would serve, of the PIP’s proportionality and of alternative solutions (other than merely the option to encourage stakeholder dialogue, cf. the Impact Assessment). This is especially important because, for news and other public interest information, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) upholds a strict standard of scrutiny. Any regulatory intervention must comply with the right to freedom of expression, as laid down in article 10 ECHR / 11 CFR."
Main Results of the Study
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The study identifies a number of policy implications:
- The main recommendation is that the EU legislator should elaborate a clear assessment of what pressing social need a PIP would serve, of the PIP’s proportionality and of alternative solutions (other than merely the option to encourage stakeholder dialogue, cf. the Impact Assessment). This is especially important because, for news and other public interest information, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) upholds a strict standard of scrutiny. Any regulatory intervention must comply with the right to freedom of expression, as laid down in article 10 ECHR / 11 CFR.
- "In its current form, the proposal seems to serve one set of interests, those of legacy print media. As Tworek & Buschow (2016) suggest, the rhetoric of ‘theft’ advanced by traditional media in support of a claim for new intellectual property rights is a just strategy to ward off threats from new media. The attempt to cement the traditional form of press publications into law may well set back the function of the press as public watchdog."