Danna, Martinelli and Nuvolari (2021)

Source Details

Danna, Martinelli and Nuvolari (2021)
Title:	Interim report on negative space of EU creative industries
Author(s):	Danna, R., Martinelli, A., Nuvolari, A.
Year:	2021
Citation:	Danna, R.; Martinelli, A. and Nuvolari, A. (2021) D4.6. Interim report on negative space of EU creative industries <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5069616> (Zenodo 5 July 2021) last accessed 7 December 2021
Link(s):	Open Access
Key Related Studies:	Raustiala and Sprigman (2006) Fauchart and von Hippel (2008) Oliar and Sprigman (2008) Rosenblatt (2010) Raustiala and Sprigman (2012)
Discipline:	O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
Linked by:

About the Data
Data Description:	The study consists of a literature review of empirical research relating to negative space IP industries. The study offers an analysis of this systematised literature review in the form of a codified alternative taxonomy.
Data Type:	Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:	Document Research
Data Analysis Methods:	Qualitative Coding / Sorting (e.g. of interview data)
Industry(ies):	Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Software publishing Film and motion pictures Television programmes Sound recording and music publishing Creative, arts and entertainment
Country(ies):	EU
Cross Country Study?:	No
Comparative Study?:	No
Literature review?:	Yes
Government or policy study?:	Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
Funder(s):	reCreating Europe - Rethinking digital copyright law for a culturally diverse, accessible, creative Europe (870626)

Abstract

“The project reCreating Europe examines stakeholders’ perspectives on European copyright regulatory framework to promote a creative, diverse, and accessible Europe. Work Package (WP) 4 – Creative industries focuses the interplay between copyright regulation and creative industries incentive structures and business models.
In particular, Task 4.2 – New business models in the European creative industries includes three subtasks aiming at: (i) studying business models of small and micro creative firms(Subtask 4.2.1), (ii) providing detailed case studies of negative IP spaces in European creative industries (Subtask 4.2.2), and (iii) investigating the effect of creative hubs on gentrification (Subtask 4.2.3). This interim report presents the progresses of Subtask 4.2.2.
Studies on the so-called ‘negative Intellectual Property (IP) spaces’ have steadily grown in recent years. The existing literature has mainly focussed on gathering multifaceted empirical evidence on the field, and the few theoretical approaches to the field provide a plurality of definitions of negative IP. In order to navigate systematically this rich but heterogeneous literature, this report provides:
1) a genealogy of the concept of ‘negative IP space’ taking into consideration contextual debates in a number of other scholarly fields; 2) an assessment of the definitions of negative IP provided so far; 3) a systematic literature review; 4) on the basis of this discussion, the report puts forward a possible new taxonomy of negative IP spaces based on a structural analysis of the creative and innovative sectors investigated in the literature. A few final remarks conclude the discussion.
As of M18 of the project, the researchers involved in the subtask have completed the whole preparatory work before the case studies. This interim report presents a taxonomy which will provide a yardstick for the identification and research design of the case studies which will be developed in months 18-36 of Subtask 4.6.2., leading to D.4.7.
The deliverable is under acceptance by the European Commission.”

Main Results of the Study

The study proposes an alternative taxonomy of negative IP space industries:
• ‘Social-norms based systems’ (e.g., haute-cuisine chefs, stand-up comedians, tattoos, street art) where strong social norms act as a replacement to a traditional copyright system.
• ‘ Commons-based systems’ (e.g., collective invention, open science, sports, free innovators, open source) where copyright protection may technically be possible, but is rejected in favour of institutionalised communities.
• ‘Knockoff systems’ (e.g., adult entertainment and fashion) where copying is extremely easy, but this is integrated within the business model of the industry, rather than relying on informal social norms.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations.

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)

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)
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}}}