Difference between revisions of "Kaye and Gray (2021)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
|Method of Collection=Qualitative Collection Methods
 
|Method of Collection=Qualitative Collection Methods
 
|Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods, Visual / Other Content Analysis, Grounded Theory
 
|Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods, Visual / Other Content Analysis, Grounded Theory
|Industry=Creative, arts and entertainment
+
|Industry=Creative, arts and entertainment; Software publishing (including video games); Sound recording and music publishing; Film and motion pictures
 
|Country=Global
 
|Country=Global
 
|Cross-country=No
 
|Cross-country=No

Revision as of 15:18, 1 October 2021

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

Kaye and Gray (2021)
Title: Copyright Gossip: Exploring Copyright Opinions, Theories, and Strategies on YouTube.
Author(s): Kaye, D.B.V, Gray, J.E.
Year: 2021
Citation: Kaye, D. B. V., & Gray, J. E. (2021). Copyright Gossip: Exploring Copyright Opinions, Theories, and Strategies on YouTube. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211036940
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Initially, over 200 (n=213) YouTube videos were manually collected using keyword search terms “copyright”, “copyright strike”, “copyright claim”, and “DMCA”. The videos collected were from small creators (less than 100 subscribers) to very popular creators (with more than 100 million subscribers) posted on the platform between 2009 and 2019. From the initial data collections, the researchers decided to narrow down the scope of the research selecting only videos posted between 2017 and 2019, that were in English and that were not published by formal institutions (e.g., government or educational organisation). Final dataset comprised 144 YouTube videos.

A pilot study was conducted with 20 randomly selected videos, which were viewed and analysed by two researchers separately, who identified clear themes and issues from these videos. After, the two researchers analysed their results together to develop a codebook, which included closed-ended sections for manual sentiment analysis, some qualitative categories and subcategories for thematic analysis and an open-ended section for additional research notes. In order to check intercoder reliability, two researchers used the codebook to code the 20-pilot videos. The remaining sample (n = 124) was coded by only one researcher.
Using a grounded thematic analysis, they identified three central thematic clusters/categories: 1) “opinions”; 2) “theories”; and 3) “strategies”.

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?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • November and December 2019
Funder(s):
  • Digital Media Research Centre at the Queensland University of Technology

Abstract

“This study investigates copyright discourses on YouTube. Through a qualitative content analysis of 144 YouTube videos, we explore how YouTube creators understand copyright law, how they minimize risks posed by copyright infringement, and how they navigate a highly technical and dynamic copyright enforcement ecosystem. Our findings offer insights into how digitally situated cultural producers are impacted by and respond to automated content moderation. This is important because increasingly lawmakers around the world are asking digital platforms to implement efficient systems for content moderation, and yet there is a lack of good information about the stakeholders most directly impacted by these practices. In this study, we present a systematic analysis of copyright gossip, building on the concept of algorithmic gossip, which comprises the opinions, theories, and strategies of creators who are affected by YouTube’s copyright enforcement systems.”

Main Results of the Study

The study suggests that:
1. Great part of YouTube creators has a negative sentiment toward YouTube’s copyright enforcement system. For many of them, copyright in YouTube is unfair and broken.
2. A structural preference for over-enforcement has a negative influence on the digital cultural environment, since it makes creators more concerned about the economic risks involved in their practices and to adopt a stricter approach about what they can create and disseminate online.
3. The risk of abuse on a system in which discretionary claims without independent oversight are allowed, such as YouTube, is very high.
4. Overall, creators have interest in comprehending and coping with the restrictions imposed by copyright law. YouTubers, for example, demonstrate to be very engaged and well informed about the platform’s copyright enforcement system.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

From a policy perspective, in their research, the authors highlight the importance of lawmakers take into account the positive and negative aspects of both discretionary and automated systems of enforcement and their impact on all stakeholders, when discussing new content moderation policies. They call attention to the potential risks that the proposed EU regime can have on digitally situated creators, since it can result in a substantial increase in the frequency of abusive content moderation practices. Finally, they provide support to the argument that bottom-up contribution to policymaking can bring more legitimacy to the copyright law.



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)
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)
Green-tick.png

Datasets

Sample size: 144
Level of aggregation: videos
Period of material under study: November and December 2019