The Experts below are selected from a list of 99054 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Matthew Rimmer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Pirate Bazaar: The Social Life of Copyright Law
2016Co-Authors: Matthew RimmerAbstract:PhD Thesis.Rimmer, Matthew (2001) The Pirate Bazaar: The Social Life of Copyright Law, Sydney: The University of New South Wales School of Law, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawTD/2001/1.html This thesis provides a cultural history of Australian Copyright Law and related artistic controversies. It examines a number of disputes over authorship, collaboration, and appropriation across a variety of cultural fields. It considers legal controversies over the plagiarism of texts, the defacing of paintings, the sampling of musical works, the ownership of plays, the co-operation between film-makers, the sharing of MP3 files on the Internet, and the appropriation of Indigenous culture. Such narratives and stories relate to a broad range of works and subject matter that are protected by Copyright Law.This study offers an archive of oral histories and narratives of artistic creators about Copyright Law. It is founded upon interviews with creative artists and activists who have been involved in Copyright litigation and policy disputes. This dialogical research provides an insight into the material and social effects of Copyright Law.This thesis concludes that Copyright Law is not just a ‘creature of statute’, but it is also a social and imaginative construct. In the lived experience of the Law, questions of aesthetics and ethics are extremely important. Industry agreements are quite influential. Contracts play an important part in the operation of Copyright Law. The media profile of personalities involved in litigation and policy debates is pertinent. This thesis claims that Copyright Law can be explained by a mix of social factors such as ethical standards, legal regulations, market forces, and computer code. It can also be understood in terms of the personal stories and narratives that people tell about litigation and Copyright Law reform.Table of ContentsPrologue 1Introduction A Creature of Statute: Copyright Law and Legal Formalism 6Chapter One The Demidenko Affair: Copyright Law and Literary Works 33Chapter Two Daubism: Copyright Law and Artistic Works 67Chapter Three The ABCs of Anarchism: Copyright Law and Musical Works 105Chapter Four Heretic: Copyright Law and Dramatic Works 146Chapter Five Shine: Copyright Law and Film 186Chapter Six Napster: Infinite Digital Jukebox or Pirate Bazaar? Copyright Law and Digital Works 232Chapter Seven Bangarra Dance Theatre: Copyright Law and Indigenous Culture 275Chapter Eight The Cathedral and the Bazaar: The Future of Copyright Law 319
-
Four Stories About Copyright Law and Appropriation Art
2004Co-Authors: Matthew RimmerAbstract:This article considers Copyright Law and the art of appropriation in an Australian context. It tells four stories about Australian artists - Imants Tillers, Gordon Bennett, Juan Davila and Tracey Moffatt. The stories examine the postmodern critique of Copyright Law, indigenous Copyright and self-determination, the introduction of moral rights, and Copyright, photography and film. The article concludes that the work of such contemporary artists has practical implications for the reform of Copyright Law.
-
A creature of statute: Copyright Law and legal formalism
2002Co-Authors: Matthew RimmerAbstract:This article argues that Copyright Law is not just a creature of statute, but it is also a social and imaginative contruct. It evaluates a number of critiques of legal formalism. Part 1 examines whether the positive rules and principles of Copyright Law are the product of historical contingency and political expediency. Part 2 considers the social operation of Copyright Law in terms of its material effects and cultural significance. Part 3 investigates the future of Copyright Law, in light of the politics of globalisation and the impact of new information technologies.
-
The Pirate Bazaar: The Social Life of Copyright Law
2001Co-Authors: Matthew RimmerAbstract:This thesis provides a cultural history of Australian Copyright Law and related artistic controversies. It examines a number of disputes over authorship, collaboration, and appropriation across a variety of cultural fields. It considers legal controversies over the plagiarism of texts, the defacing of paintings, the sampling of musical works, the ownership of plays, the co-operation between film-makers, the sharing of MP3 files on the Internet, and the appropriation of Indigenous culture. Such narratives and stories relate to a broad range of works and subject matter that are protected by Copyright Law. This study offers an archive of oral histories and narratives of artistic creators about Copyright Law. It is founded upon interviews with creative artists and activists who have been involved in Copyright litigation and policy disputes. This dialogical research provides an insight into the material and social effects of Copyright Law. This thesis concludes that Copyright Law is not just a ‘creature of statute’, but it is also a social and imaginative construct. In the lived experience of the Law, questions of aesthetics and ethics are extremely important. Industry agreements are quite influential. Contracts play an important part in the operation of Copyright Law. The media profile of personalities involved in litigation and policy debates is pertinent. This thesis claims that Copyright Law can be explained by a mix of social factors such as ethical standards, legal regulations, market forces, and computer code. It can also be understood in terms of the personal stories and narratives that people tell about litigation and Copyright Law reform. Table of Contents Prologue 1 Introduction A Creature of Statute: Copyright Law and Legal Formalism 6 Chapter One The Demidenko Affair: Copyright Law and Literary Works 33 Chapter Two Daubism: Copyright Law and Artistic Works 67 Chapter Three The ABCs of Anarchism: Copyright Law and Musical Works 105 Chapter Four Heretic: Copyright Law and Dramatic Works 146 Chapter Five Shine: Copyright Law and Film 186 Chapter Six Napster: Infinite Digital Jukebox or Pirate Bazaar? Copyright Law and Digital Works 232 Chapter Seven Bangarra Dance Theatre: Copyright Law and Indigenous Culture 275 Chapter Eight The Cathedral and the Bazaar: The Future of Copyright Law 319
Laurie Willis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
LibGuides: Copyright Law: Copyright Law
2016Co-Authors: Laurie WillisAbstract:A guide on many facets of Copyright Law for educators. A description of Copyright Law in the United States
-
LibGuides: Copyright Law: Copyright Law for Teachers
2016Co-Authors: Laurie WillisAbstract:A guide on many facets of Copyright Law for educators. A guide on many facets of Copyright Law for educators.
-
LibGuides: Copyright Law: Other Resources
2016Co-Authors: Laurie WillisAbstract:A guide on many facets of Copyright Law for educators. A list of resources for more information on Copyright Law
Shyamkrishna Balganesh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Immanent Rationality of Copyright Law
Michigan Law Review, 2017Co-Authors: Shyamkrishna BalganeshAbstract:THE IMMANENT RATIONALITY OF Copyright Law WHAT'S WRONG WITH COPYING? By Abraham Drassinower. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. 2015. Pp. xi, 272. $39.95.INTRODUCTIONWhy does Copyright treat certain kinds of copying as legally actionable? For nearly a century, American Copyright thinking has referenced a core consequentialist dogma to answer this question: incentivizing the production of creative expression at minimal social cost in an effort to further social welfare.1 This rationale, routinely traced back to the Constitution's seemingly utilitarian mandate that Copyright Law should "promote the [p]rogress" of the sciences and useful arts, has come to dominate modern Copyright jurisprudence and analysis.2 By classifying specific acts of copying as a wrong, and thereby recognizing a "right to the use of one's expression," Copyright is believed to provide actors with an independent incentive to produce original expression, one that in turn furthers the overall public interest.3 Copyright is seen as just another mechanism of welfare maximization.In this welfarist understanding of Copyright, the wrongfulness of copying is externally determined in its entirety. In Copyright Law, copying is wrongful only because it interferes with a creator's legally promised market for her expression, thereby potentially reducing the inducement to create future work. Without a legal basis for stopping such harmful copying, creators might choose not to produce original expression, and society as a whole would be worse off for it. Hence the need for Copyright Law, at least according to the welfarist account.4In What's Wrong with Copying?, Abraham Drassinower5 forcefully suggests that this dogma is not just superficial or incomplete, but instead that it is utter balderdash. According to Drassinower, the welfarist account of Copyright has little to say about the precise structure of Copyright Law as a unique institution. In other words, even if the core assumptions underlying the account (i.e., about welfare and incentives) are taken to be true, it fails to explain why Copyright Law is delineated using a very specific set of mechanisms, concepts, and principles-most of which have been in existence ever since the origins of the institution in the early eighteenth century. Thus, in the book, Drassinower sets out to offer a normatively coherent account of Copyright Law that makes sense of its "fundamental features . . . as a coherent whole" (pp. 7-8).What's Wrong with Copying? should be lauded for its audaciousness, ambition, and coherence. In challenging the dominant consequentialist account, the book attempts to shift the very framing of the discourse by looking inside the conceptual structure of Copyright doctrine, rather than to external considerations. Perhaps most impressively, it succeeds in extending its central premise to the most salient parts of Copyright doctrine, thereby realizing a degree of explanatory coherence that most modern theories of Copyright routinely lack. In short, What's Wrong with Copying? develops a theory of Copyright that takes Copyright Law seriously.Perhaps a little too seriously, though. In constructing an account of Copyright that takes its doctrinal elements seriously, Drassinower sees a deep rationality within the structure of Copyright rules and principles. He believes this rationality is self-contained within Copyright doctrine, but also that it is immutable, and necessarily incompatible with other external (and potentially consequentialist) considerations. What's Wrong with Copying? thus presents Copyright not just as a rationalist institution, but one which has an entirely and exclusively immanent rationality.6The book makes a compelling case for looking beyond purely instrumental/consequentialist accounts of Copyright to understand the institution and for taking the structure of Copyright doctrine as an integral (rather than contingent) part of the institution. …
-
The Folklore and Symbolism of Authorship in American Copyright Law
2016Co-Authors: Shyamkrishna BalganeshAbstract:Despite its formal commitment to “authorship,” American Copyright Law pays surprisingly little doctrinal attention to understanding the concept. Originality, taken to be modern Copyright Law’s proxy for authorship, has come to assume a life of its own, with little regard to the system’s supposed ideals of authorship. What role then does authorship play in modern American Copyright Law? This Article argues that authorship is best understood as a form of folklore and symbolism in Copyright Law. Drawing on the anthropological strand of Legal Realism advanced and developed by Thurman Arnold, the Article argues that authorship serves an important symbolic purpose within Copyright thinking, which enables the institution to develop around idealized accounts of individual creativity even when those accounts are hard to anchor in reality. Arnold famously argued that in numerous contexts, legal rules and devices serve the role of mediating between an institution’s practical manifestations and society’s beliefs about the proper objectives of that institutional framework. Rather than advocate for their abolition, Arnold argued that these devices enabled the rationalization and legitimation of an institution, when worthy of being reformed from the inside. Authorship, in this understanding, functions as an all-important framing device for the institution of Copyright. The Article develops this symbolic account of authorship, and shows how it allows Copyright Law and jurisprudence to make sense of various anomalies within the system.
-
the normativity of copying in Copyright Law
Duke Law Journal, 2012Co-Authors: Shyamkrishna BalganeshAbstract:Not all copying constitutes Copyright infringement. Quite independent of fair use, Copyright Law requires that an act of copying be qualitatively and quantitatively significant enoughor “substantially similar”for it to be actionable. Originating in the nineteenth century, and entirely the creation of courts, Copyright’s requirement of “substantial similarity” has thus far received little attention as an independently meaningful normative dimension of the Copyright entitlement. This Article offers a novel theory for Copyright’s substantial-similarity requirement by placing it firmly at the center of the institution and its various goals and purposes. As a common-Law-style device that mirrors the functioning of other areas of private Law, such as tort Law, substantial similarity remains an unappreciated source of flexibility and pluralism in Copyright Law. It allows courts to modulate the Copyright entitlement’s operational robustness by altering the amount of exclusivity that a work obtains, based on different criteria, and thereby introduces “thickness” as an altogether new dimension of the entitlement. It also renders the adjudication of Copyright infringement overtly pluralistic by sequencing the introduction of incommensurable values into the inquiry in a particular, reasoned order. As a mechanism of conceptual Copyright © 2012 by Shyamkrishna Balganesh. † Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Many thanks to Stephanos Bibas, Cary Coglianese, Richard Epstein, Wendy Gordon, Leo Katz, Jody Kraus, Mark Lemley, Saul Levmore, Irene Lu, David Nimmer, Gideon Parchomovsky, Jennifer Rothman, Ben Zipursky, and participants at the Loyola Los Angeles IP Theory Colloquium, and a Penn Law Faculty Workshop for helpful comments, discussions, and suggestions. Responsibility for all errors remains with the author. BALGANESH IN PRINTER PROOF FINAL REVISED (DO NOT DELETE) 10/29/2012 10:51 AM 204 DUKE Law JOURNAL [Vol. 62:203 sequencing—a multicriterion decision-making process long known to the common Law—substantial similarity allows Copyright Law to affirm both utilitarian and personality-based considerations, while prioritizing the former over the latter systemically. Viewing Copyright Law through the lens of substantial similarity sheds new light on the compatibility of the institution’s goals and purposes, Copyright’s structure as a “property” right, and the role of courts within its overall scheme.
-
The Normativity of Copying in Copyright Law
2012Co-Authors: Shyamkrishna BalganeshAbstract:Not all copying constitutes Copyright infringement. Quite independent of fair use, Copyright Law requires that an act of copying be qualitatively and quantitatively significant enough or 'substantially similar' for it to be actionable. Originating in the nineteenth century, and entirely the creation of courts, Copyright’s requirement of 'substantial similarity' has thus far received little attention as an independently meaningful normative dimension of the entitlement. This Article offers a novel theory for Copyright’s substantial similarity requirement by placing it firmly at the center of the institution and its various goals and purposes. As a common Law-style device that mirrors the functioning of other areas of private Law such as tort Law, substantial similarity remains an unappreciated source of flexibility and pluralism in Copyright Law. It allows courts to modulate the Copyright entitlement’s operational robustness by altering the amount of exclusivity that a work obtains, based on different criteria and thereby introduces 'thickness' as an altogether new dimension of the entitlement. It also renders the adjudication of Copyright infringement overtly pluralistic by sequencing the introduction of incommensurable values into the inquiry in a particular, reasoned order. As a mechanism of conceptual sequencing, a multi-criterion decision-making process long known to the common Law substantial similarity allows Copyright Law to affirm both utilitarian and personality-based considerations, while prioritizing the former over the latter systemically. Viewing Copyright Law through the lens substantial similarity sheds new light on the compatibility of the institution’s goals and purposes, its structure as a 'property' right, and the role of courts within its overall scheme.
Karapapa Stavroula - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Quotation under EU Copyright Law
'Informa UK Limited', 2021Co-Authors: Karapapa StavroulaAbstract:A fundamental act of permissible use in Copyright Law, quotation has a relatively broad scope under EU Copyright as the Court of Justice (CJEU) has affirmed. Developing a principle-based perspective on the theoretical justification underpinning Copyright protection as a dialogue between authors and users, cases C-469/17 Funke Medien, C-476/17 Pelham, and C-516/17 Spiegel Online, explain that exceptions and limitations to Copyright, including the quotation exception, crystallise the balance between Copyright and fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of speech. External application of fundamental freedoms as defensive rules is hence not necessary. A natural unfolding of the implications of the concept of the balance between Copyright and fundamental rights is that the CJEU affirmed the integral status of Copyright exceptions and limitations as user rights. This is a ground-breaking insight on the legal nature of these defensive rules under EU Copyright Law, aligning with scholarly consensus towards the recognition of Copyright user rights and departing from national precedents denying the existence of rights of the users. The present contribution discusses the scope of permissible quotation under EU Copyright, investigates the legal nature of this provision and, going beyond current scholarship, inquires the contextual framework and legal implications from declaring the relevant legal provision as a right of the users of Copyright protected works
Michael J. Meurer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Copyright Law and Price Discrimination
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2001Co-Authors: Michael J. MeurerAbstract:I show that Copyright Law is intimately connected to price discrimination. First, price discrimination is common in markets for Copyrighted works. Second, many features of Copyright Law affect resale or personal arbitrage and so influence the profitability of price discrimination. For example, the first sale doctrine and the fair use doctrine often facilitate arbitrage and discourage discrimination, while the derivative and public performance rights impede arbitrage and promote discrimination. Third, optimal Copyright policy requires attention to the social costs and benefits from price discrimination. I use models of price discrimination to unify the analysis of a wide range of Copyright policy issues. I argue that public performance rights are desirable because they support fine-grained price discrimination and displace other forms of price discrimination that have greater social cost. I argue against a broad definition of the derivative right that includes movie merchandise. Movie merchandising usually imposes allocative and implementation costs with little offsetting benefit in terms of creative incentive. I show that personal copying and other activities possibly covered by fair use have mixed effects on price discrimination and social welfare. Finally, I argue that the importation right should not cover gray market goods and should not be used to facilitate geographic price discrimination.
