1,721,409 research outputs found
A Relational Theory of Authorship
No full textOver the years we have heard the debate as to whether authorship emanates solely from the individual or from the cultural context in which they inhabit. Writers such as Professors Woodmansee, Jaszi and Cohen have asserted a cultural theory of authorship. On one hand, there is the liberal philosophy of autonomous creativity evidenced in the notion of a "romantic author" (after the period known as romanticism). On the other hand we have more of a communitarian notion – that the author acts in a cultural context and authorship to some extent must be linked back to the social existence within which the author is situated.\ud
\ud
This article argues that for too long we have privileged the notion of the romantic author so much so that it is hard to argue for any other approach to copyright than one that focuses primarily on the author and their assignees such as publishers or associated commercialising agents such as recording companies. Furthermore it suggests that this approach fits awkwardly with the burgeoning networked society fuelled by the Internet to the point where it threatens innovation and the potential for productivity. To this end the article argues that we should more explicitly acknowledge the contribution of culture to authorship and more so the role of each and every individual in assisting and nurturing that authorship, as well as the contribution of users to creativity through consumptive, productive and transformative use of copyright works
Legal framework for e-research : realising the potential
No full textLegal Framework for e-Research: Realising the Potential provides an overview of key legal issues facing e-Research. Part One of this book considers the broader prospect and context of what e-Research will allow. Part Two looks more closely at the role law will play in the e-Research environment. Part Three focuses on the key issues of data exchange and data management highlighting important legal issues. Part Four reflects on the changing nature of Scholarly Communications while Part Five looks at the fundamental role of agreements for collaborative endeavour (contracts) in structuring collaboration and calls for greater consideration of way we can streamline the process. Part Six examines the role and operation of privacy law in an e-Research world while Part Seven posits a new approach to commercialisation that embraces the paradigm of open innovation. Part Eight looks at the international legal implications for e-Research and Part Nine considers the national survey we undertook on e-Research, collaborative agreements and data management
Third Party Copyright and Public Information Infrastructure/Registries: How Much Copyright Tax Must the Public Pay?
No full textIn a case currently before the High Court of Australia (Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) v NSW ) the fundamental question at issue is whether the owner (in this case surveyors) of copyright material (in this case land survey plans) that is submitted as part of a public register (in this case the land titles registry) with all the benefits that entails, should nonetheless have the right to charge the government and end users every time they reproduce or communicate that material to the public. This book chapter examines the merits of this claim
Enabling Open Access to Public Sector Information With Creative Commons Licences : The Australian Experience
No full textThis chapter considers how open content licences of copyright-protected materials – specifically, Creative Commons (CC) licences - can be used by governments as a simple and effective mechanism to enable reuse of their PSI, particularly where materials are made available in digital form online or distributed on disk
Copyright, fair use and the Australian Constitution
No full textThere has been much debate over recent years about whether Australian copyright law should adopt a fair use doctrine. In this chapter we argue by pointing to the historical record that the incorporation of the term 'copyrights' in the Australian Constitution embeds a notion of balance and fair use in Australian law and that this should be taken into account when interpreting the Australian Copyright Act 1968.\ud
\ud
English case law in the 18th and 19th centuries developed a principle that copyright infringement did not occur where a person had made a fair use of a work. Fair use was generally established where the defendant had made a productive use that did more than alter the original work for the purpose of evading liability, and where the defendant had made an original contribution to the resulting work. Additionally, fairness was shown by a use that did not supersede or prejudice the market for the original work. \ud
\ud
At the time of including the copyright power in the Constitution, the UK Parliament’s understanding of “copyrights” included the notion of fair use as it had been developed in U.K. precedent. In this chapter we argue that the work “copyrights” in the Australia Constitution takes its definition from copyright in 1900 and as it has evolved since. Importantly, the word “copyrights” is infused with a particular meaning that incorporates the principle of copyright balance. The constitutional notion of copyright, therefore, is not that of an unlimited power to prevent all copying. Rather, copyright distinguishes between infringing copying and non-infringing copying and grants to the copyright owner only the power to control the former. Non-infringing copying includes well-accepted limitations on the copyright owner’s rights, including the copying of ideas, the copying of public domain works and the copying of insubstantial parts of copyrighted works. In this chapter we argue that non-infringing copying also includes copying to make a fair use of a work.\ud
\ud
The sections that distinguish infringing copying from non-infringing copying in the Copyright Act 1968 are sections 36(1) and 101(1), which define infringement as the doing, without licence, of an “act comprised in the copyright”. An infringing copy is an act comprised the copyright, whereas a non-infringing copy is not. We argue that space for fair uses of copyrighted works is built into the Copyright Act 1968 through these sections, because a fair use will not produce an infringing copy and so is not an act comprised in the copyright
Free software as a democratic principle
No full textSoftware forms an important part of the interface between citizens and their government. An increasing amount of government functions are being performed, controlled, or delivered electronically. This software, like all language, is never value-neutral, but must, to some extent, reflect the values of the coder and proprietor. The move that many governments are making towards e-governance, and the increasing reliance that is being placed upon software in government, necessitates a rethinking of the relationships of power and control that are embodied in software
CIVIL JURISDICTION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE INTERNET
Full text linkAt the core of the civil litigation system is the notion of jurisdiction. In a narrow sense it refers to whether a court has the authority to hear a case in relation to specific people and activities (subject matter) but in a broader sense it also encompasses what law should be applied (choice of law), whether the court is a suitable court to hear the case (choice of court) and the enforcement of judgements. The notion of jurisdiction provides a tool for efficiently managing litigation and traditionally has been based upon notions of connection to a particular territory. In the global transnational world of the Internet the concept of jurisdiction has struggled to find a sensible meaning.1 Does jurisdiction lie everywhere that the Internet runs or is it more narrowly defined? In this chapter we examine recent cases concerning jurisdiction and the Internet before the courts of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in matters relating to intellectual property. We also consider decisions in Australia and the United States of America (US) and international developments in the area
Creating a Legal Framework for Copyright Management of Open Access within the Australian Academic and Research Sector
Full text linkThere is an increasing recognition, in Australia and internationally, that access to knowledge is a key driver of social, cultural and economic development. The argument for greater access to, and reuse of, research outputs is reinforced by the fact that much research in Australia is funded by public money and, consequently, that there is a public benefit to be served by allowing citizens to access the outputs they have funded.2 This recognition poses both legal and policy challenges, in terms of existing legal frameworks such as copyright law and traditional business models. With the rise of networked digital technologies our knowledge landscape and innovation system is becoming more and more reliant on best practice copyright management strategies and there is a need to accommodate both the demands for open sharing of knowledge and traditional commercialisation models. As a result, new business models that support and promote open innovation are rapidly emerging. This chapter analyses the copyright law framework needed to ensure open access to outputs of the Australian academic and research sector such as journal articles and theses. It overviews the new knowledge landscape, the principles of copyright law, the concept of open access to knowledge, the recently developed open content models of copyright licensing and the challenges faced in providing greater access to knowledge and research outputs
Country of Origin and Internet Publication: Applying the Berne Convention in the Digital Age
No full textHistorically, determining the country of origin of a published work presented few challenges, because works were generally published physically – whether in print or otherwise – in a distinct location or few locations. However, publishing opportunities presented by new technologies mean that we now live in a world of simultaneous publication – works that are first published online are published simultaneously to every country in world in which there is Internet connectivity. While this is certainly advantageous for the dissemination and impact of information and creative works, it creates potential complications under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne Convention”), an international intellectual property agreement to which most countries in the world now subscribe. Under the Berne Convention’s national treatment provisions, rights accorded to foreign copyright works may not be subject to any formality, such as registration requirements (although member countries are free to impose formalities in relation to domestic copyright works).\ud
\ud
In Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. however, the Florida Southern District Court of the United States ruled that first publication of a work on the Internet via an Australian website constituted “simultaneous publication all over the world,” and therefore rendered the work a “United States work” under the definition in section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act, subjecting the work to registration formality under section 411. This ruling is in sharp contrast with an earlier decision delivered by the Delaware District Court in Håkan Moberg v. 33T LLC, et al. which arrived at an opposite conclusion. The conflicting rulings of the U.S. courts reveal the problems posed by new forms of publishing online and demonstrate a compelling need for further harmonization between the Berne Convention, domestic laws and the practical realities of digital publishing.\ud
\ud
In this chapter, we argue that even if a work first published online can be considered to be simultaneously published all over the world it does not follow that any country can assert itself as the “country of origin” of the work for the purpose of imposing domestic copyright formalities. More specifically, we argue that the meaning of “United States work” under the U.S. Copyright Act should be interpreted in line with the presumption against extraterritorial application of domestic law to limit its application to only those works with a real and substantial connection to the United States. There are gaps in the Berne Convention’s articulation of “country of origin” which provide scope for judicial interpretation, at a national level, of the most pragmatic way forward in reconciling the goals of the Berne Convention with the practical requirements of domestic law. We believe that the uncertainties arising under the Berne Convention created by new forms of online publishing can be resolved at a national level by the sensible application of principles of statutory interpretation by the courts. While at the international level we may need a clearer consensus on what amounts to “simultaneous publication” in the digital age, state practice may mean that we do not yet need to explore textual changes to the Berne Convention
Vesey-Fitzgerald, Brian. — The Vanishing Wild Life of Britain, London, Macgibbon & Kec, 1969
No full textMonod Théodore. Vesey-Fitzgerald, Brian. — The Vanishing Wild Life of Britain, London, Macgibbon & Kec, 1969. In: La Terre et La Vie, Revue d'Histoire naturelle, tome 24, n°1, 1970. pp. 151-152
- …
