Meletti and van Gompel (2021)

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Revision as of 15:01, 21 October 2021 by AThomas (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{MainSource |Source={{Source |Name of Study=Meletti and van Gompel (2021) |Author=Meletti, B.; van Gompel, S.; |Title=Issue reports on how copyright exceptions and other perm...")
(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

Meletti and van Gompel (2021)
Title: Issue reports on how copyright exceptions and other permitted uses that are relevant for documentary filmmakers and immersive digital heritage practitioners are understood in the Netherlands and the UK
Author(s): Meletti, B., van Gompel, S.
Year: 2021
Citation: Meletti, B. and van Gompel, S. (2021) Issue reports on how copyright exceptions and other permitted uses that are relevant for documentary filmmakers and immersive digital heritage practitioners are understood in the Netherlands and the UK. Available: https://zenodo.org/record/5070427 (accessed 21 October 2021)
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Data were gathered from participants in a series of four workshops conducted in early 2021. Participants included 15 documentary filmmakers (9 from the Uk and 6 the Netherlands) and 9 digital heritage practitioners (5 from the UK and 4 from the Netherlands).


TK: GLAM

Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: Yes
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2021
Funder(s):
  • Horizon 2020 Grant Agreement No. 870626

Abstract

"This reCreating Europe deliverable D4.10 outlines the most pressing copyright-related issues and concerns faced by documentary filmmakers and by curators and creators of immersive experiences in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. It is the main output of the first stage of Task 4.3 Developing best practice codes for creative audiovisual re-use, led by CREATe (University of Glasgow) and IViR (University of Amsterdam) as part of Work Package 4 Creative Industries.
After a short introduction to the project and its methodology (Section 1), the document offers an overview of the issues identified and discussed by the communities being examined in relation to copyright and the lawful reuse of audiovisual materials. The findings of four online workshops – one for each community in the two jurisdictions under consideration – are systematised in four issue reports (Sections 2 and 3). Each issue report describes the creative and cultural practice of the workshops’ participants and the core copyright-related concerns they identified. The main points discussed by participants under each area of concern are reported. The copyright issues that documentary filmmakers reported as being the most worrying related to access (identifying and negotiating with right owners and archives), use (exceptions and limitations/fair dealing vs rights clearance) and distribution (territoriality of the law). The main copyright concerns raised by curators and creators of immersive digital heritage resolved around the questions of identifying, contacting and negotiating with rights holders, the uncertainties of knowing whether your use is fair/lawful or not, and responsibilities (for infringement and preservation). This was the same in both jurisdictions.
Section 4 provides a snapshot of the copyright exceptions and limitations in UK and Dutch law which may cover the uses of protected content discussed by participants. Finally, Section 5 encompasses conclusive remarks and the next steps of the project.
The deliverable is under acceptance by the European Commission. “

Main Results of the Study

• Creators find it difficult to re-use copyright protected content and secure permission from the appropriate rightsholder. Reported difficulties include: problems identifying and negotiating with rightsholders, high and inflexible licensing fees, and reliance on archives/intermediaries who may or may not have appropriate permissions to grant use of the materials sought.
• Creators are reluctant to rely on copyright exceptions in regards to protected work. Awareness of exceptions is limited, and are viewed as legally uncertain (particularly in interpretation - e.g. how to signal quotation of a visual work). Further, risk-adverse producers may also hamper the likelihood to rely on an exception where broad policies on the re-use of copyrighted content are applied. In lieu of exceptions, creators instead rely on the use of public domain materials and rights clearance (through e.g. the payment of a fee).
• Due to concerns about copyright clearance in other territories, creators often make decisions about their target markets up-front when making their work. Securing international, cross-territorial agreements for the re-use of copyright protected work is reportedly prohibitively expensive, with only limited insurance policies in place in case of any infringement.

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
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)
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)
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

Sample size: 15
Level of aggregation: Filmmakers
Period of material under study: 2021


Sample size: 9
Level of aggregation: Digital heritage practitioners
Period of material under study: 2021