Danbury (2016)

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Revision as of 11:02, 16 February 2017 by Kenny (talk | contribs) (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Danbury (2016)
Title: Is an EU publishers’ right a good idea? Final report on the AHRC project: Evaluating potential legal responses to threats to the production of news in a digital era
Author(s): Danbury, R.
Year: 2016
Citation: Danbury, R. (2016). Is an EU publishers’ right a good idea? Final report on the AHRC project: Evaluating potential legal responses to threats to the production of news in a digital era, https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.law.cam.ac.uk/files/images/www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/documents/copyright_and_news/danbury_publishers_right_report.pdf
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (2016)
About the Data
Data Description:
Data Type:
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:
Funder(s):

Abstract

This is a discussion about commercial news production, and copyright-related laws in Europe. It is a response to the consultation opened by the European Commission in March 2016 about whether to create an EU-wide neighbouring right, in the copyright family of intellectual property rights, that will benefit publishers. It examines four arguments for a news publishers’ right. These are:

• it will provide a necessary incentive to the commercial production of news, an activity that is valuable to a democratic society; • commercial news publishers are treated unequally by EU copyright law, and a publishers’ right will resolve this; • online re-distributors of published news are free riding on the effort of commercial news publishers, and a publishers’ right can be expected to restrain this; • commercial news publishers have a natural right to the news they publish, and such rights are being breached by online re-distributors of news: a publishers’ right can be expected to protect them.

Main Results of the Study

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

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)?
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)
Green-tick.png
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)
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