Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Academic Freedom, Copyright, and Access to Scholarly Works: A Comparative Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Balancing Copyright Law in the Digital Age

Abstract

The right to academic freedom protected both under international treaties and national constitutions is at the very heart of social, cultural, and economic development. As far as scientific research and teaching are concerned, copyright has to be considered within the context of a proper balancing of rights. This issue will be addressed taking into account the traditional publication model in light of the peculiarities of scientific research, including the mechanisms of evaluating research and the relevant stakeholders’s interests that differ from those characterizing other sectors of content production. We will analyze whether the current practice in academic content dissemination and legal framework are compliant with academic freedom principles, considering the role of copyright in science. Since effective protection of academic freedom also depends on the possibility of access to knowledge, we will examine whether and how the open access model can achieve a proper balance between the rights at stake, looking at legal instruments recently issued by Italian, German, and US legislatures. Proposal for copyright provisions tailored to specific needs of the scientific field will be considered as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hilty (2006), p. 103.

  2. 2.

    At the international level, the need for societal development inspires the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) April 15, 1994, Art. 28.1 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments—Results of the Uruguay Round, vol. 31, 33 I.L.M. 81 (1994); Word Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, December 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 65 (1997).

  3. 3.

    The term “ecosystem,” as used in this paper, refers broadly to the system that facilitates the conception, production, dissemination, commercialization, consumption, usage, and enjoyment of creative works in society. See Kaufman (2012).

  4. 4.

    See Netanel (2008); Torremans (2008), p. 197. From a “law and economics” perspective, see Farell and Shapiro (2004); Landes and Posner (2003), pp. 66 ff. In U.S. case law, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994).

  5. 5.

    See Reichman and Okediji (2012), p. 1362.

  6. 6.

    See Merton (1942), p. 1973.

  7. 7.

    Robertson (1977–1978), p. 1204.

  8. 8.

    Some scholars argue in favor of abolishing copyright; see Shavell (2010), p. 301; Breyer (1970), pp. 281–355. See also Mueller-Langer and Scheufer (2013).

  9. 9.

    Some form of compensation may be provided for certain genres, such as teaching material, handbooks, etc.

  10. 10.

    See Suber (2012), pp. 29 ff.

  11. 11.

    There is no empirical evidence that copyright increases authors’ earnings. See Towse (2001).

  12. 12.

    Guedòn (2001).

  13. 13.

    This is also pointed out in the US “Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure”: “Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.”

  14. 14.

    See Tartari and Breschi (2012), p. 1117.

  15. 15.

    Ludington (2011), pp. 397–432.

  16. 16.

    On this point, see Hilty et al. (2009), p. 309. According to the EU Commission, the mentioned authors speak about “a Fifth Freedom” that would set a new paradigm regarding the free circulation of knowledge. This is particularly relevant for scientific information and knowledge.

  17. 17.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress to secure “for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

  18. 18.

    For an introduction on the balancing of fundamental rights with respect to intellectual property, see Brown (2012).

  19. 19.

    CJEU, 16 February 2012, case C-360/10 (Netlog), para 43; CJEU 24 November 2011, case C-70/10 (Scarlet), para 45.

  20. 20.

    The principles of proportionality and “fair balancing” are mentioned in several decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dealing with the clash between copyright and fundamental rights. See, inter alia, CJEU, 18 July 2007, case C-275/06 (Promusicae); CJEU 24 November 2011, case C-70/10 (Scarlet); CJEU, 16 February 2012, case C-360/10 (Netlog); CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C‑466/12 (Svensson and Others). For an extensive look at this subject in this book, see the chapters by C. Sganga and G. Spedicato, this volume.

  21. 21.

    Hilty et al. (2009).

  22. 22.

    See Dershowitz (2005).

  23. 23.

    As Connolly observes, “academic freedom is a kind of cousin of freedom of speech” Connolly (2000), p. 71. In the same direction, Daughtrey (1991), pp. 213–271. See also Turner (1988).

  24. 24.

    International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 13.

  25. 25.

    ICESCR, Article 15 (1)(a). A right to share in cultural life is also found in Article 30, Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2007.

  26. 26.

    ICESCR Article 15 (1)(b).

  27. 27.

    For a comparative analysis of academic freedom in terms of both individual and institutional independence, see Karran (2007).

  28. 28.

    See Robertson (1977–1978), p. 1204.

  29. 29.

    Monotti and Ricketson (2003).

  30. 30.

    “Explanations relating to the charter of fundamental rights” (2007/C 303/02).

  31. 31.

    See Article 10 (2) ECHR: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.

  32. 32.

    Recommendation (2000) 8 of the Committee of Ministers of 30 March 2000 on the research mission of universities, adopted at the 705th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

  33. 33.

    Recommendation (2006) 1762 of the Parliamentary Assembly of 30 June 2006 on academic freedom and university autonomy, adopted by the Assembly on 30 June 2006.

  34. 34.

    Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 23. Mai 1949, Art. 5 (3): “Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre sind frei. Die Freiheit der Lehre entbindet nicht von der Treue zur Verfassung.” The constitutional provisions that explicitly proclaim the freedom of research in European countries are directly related to the events of the Second World War. See Santosuosso et al. (2007), p. 342.

  35. 35.

    See Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana (GU n. 298 del 27-12-1947) Art. 9 (1) “La Repubblica promuove lo sviluppo della cultura e la ricerca scientifica e tecnica” and Article 33 (1): “Art and science are free and teaching them is free.

  36. 36.

    For a comprehensive analysis of the law governing protection of academic freedom in European countries, see Karran (2007), p. 289.

  37. 37.

    BVerfGE 35, 79, 112 ff.—Hochschulurteil. See Mangolt and Klein, Starck (2010); Pernice (2004); Epping and Hillgruber (2009); Jarass and Pieroth (2014).

  38. 38.

    See Art. 14 (1) of the German Constitution.

  39. 39.

    See Art. 5 (1) of the German Constitution.

  40. 40.

    See Art 12 (1) of the German Constitution.

  41. 41.

    See Lutz (2012); Leinemann (1998), 53 ss.

  42. 42.

    Pernice (2004), pp. 28 ff.

  43. 43.

    Steinhauer (2010), pp. 43 ff.; Fehling (2010), p. 74; Jarass and Pieroth, pp. 122 ff.; Sanberger (2006), pp. 818 and 820; Krasser and Schricker (1998), pp. 128 and 152.

  44. 44.

    Pflueger and Ertmann (2004), pp. 436 and 441.

  45. 45.

    This also emerged from a study of the Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 14 January 2002, in which the potential conflicts between “publishing” and “patenting” strategies were considered.

  46. 46.

    Fechner (1999), pp. 288 ff. and 328; Bethge (2009), 220 ff.

  47. 47.

    See Art. 42 of the ArbEG.

  48. 48.

    An overview of this topic is found in Guarda (2013).

  49. 49.

    “Anderung des Gesetzes über Arbeitnehmererfindungen,” Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I, Nr. 4, January 24th 2002. The initiative of the Federal Government is published as Bundestags-Drucksache 14/7565, November 23rd, 2001, at http://www.ipjur.com/data/1407565.pdf, which is identical to the document by the parties that support the Federal Government (Social Democrats, Green): Bundestags-Drucksache 14/5975, May 5th, 2001, http://www.ipjur.com/data/1405975.pdf.

    In amending the German Employee Inventions Act, policy makers were concerned that individual researchers might be unwilling or unable to pursue the commercial application of their ideas through patenting and licensing activities. Dedicated technology transfer offices (TTOs) were seen as better suited to fulfilling these tasks.

  50. 50.

    In the literature, see Leistner (2004), pp. 859 ff.; von Falck and Schmaltz (2005), p. 912.

  51. 51.

    See Art. 42 (4) of the ArbEG.

  52. 52.

    “Das Grundrecht des Artikels 5 Abs. 3 GG gebietet zwar nicht die Rechtsinhaberschaft des Hochschullehrer an seinen Forschungsergebnissen, denn die Forschungsfreiheit umfasst nicht das Recht auf kommerzielle Nutzung von Wissenschaft-Erfindungen,” BT-Dr 14/5975 of 9 May 2001; BR-Dr 583/01 of 17 August 2001.

  53. 53.

    “[b]erücksichtigt werden muss aber das aus der Forschungsfreiheit herzuleiten Recht auf negative Publikationsfreiheit, also das Recht des Wissenschaftlers, Ergebnisse seiner Arbeiten der Öffentlichkeit nicht mitzuteilen. Auch muss gewährleistet werden, dass die positive Publikationsfreiheit nicht in unzumutbarer Weise beschränkt wird.” BT-Dr 14/5975 of 9 May 2001, at 5; same wording BR-Dr 583/01 of 17 August 2001, at 5.

  54. 54.

    Braegelmann (2009–2010), p. 99.

  55. 55.

    See Pernice (2004), pp. 1439 f.; Dreier (2013), p. 94.

  56. 56.

    See the chapter by C. Sganga, in this volume; Fechner (1999), pp. 186 ff.

  57. 57.

    See Yu (2009), pp. 979 ff.

  58. 58.

    Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (2001), Submission by the African Group, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Peru, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Venezuela’, IP/C/W/296, para. 18.

  59. 59.

    As for the patent law, this emerges clearly in the Klinische Versuche leading case Klinische Versuche 1 BVerfG, 1864 (1995). See Niioka (2001).

  60. 60.

    Schoolbook, 31 BVerfGE 229 (1971).

  61. 61.

    In those years, the Federal Constitutional Court was involved in this topic on numerous occasions. See, inter alia, the Broadcast Lending case 31 BVerfGE 248 (1971). For further analysis, see Kommers (1997), pp. 651 ff.; Geller (2010), p. 907.

  62. 62.

    49 BVerfGE 382 (1978).

  63. 63.

    See Article 33, Italian Constitution.

  64. 64.

    An overview of the Italian scenario in light of the constitutional provisions is found in Merloni (1990).

  65. 65.

    See Mangolt and Klein, Starck (2010) Pernice (2004), Epping and Hillgruber, (2009) Jarass and Pieroth, (2014)

  66. 66.

    This is also in Germany; see 1 BVerfG, 333 (1975). 1, 1864 (1995). On this subject, see Ruffert and Steinecke (2011).

  67. 67.

    See Corte Cost. 9. 11. 1988, no. 1017, available at http://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/1988/1017s-88.html.

  68. 68.

    The Magna Charta of European Universities is the final outcome of the proposal put forward by the University of Bologna, in 1986, to the oldest European universities. The document, drafted in Barcelona in January 1988, was signed by several universities. The document is available at http://www.magna-charta.org/cms/cmspage.aspx?pageUid={d4bd2cba-e26b-499e-80d5-b7a2973d5d97}.

  69. 69.

    Law No. 383 of 18 October 2001 added a new Article 24 to the law on invention, which is now transposed in Article 65 of the Industrial Property Code, Law of 10 February 2005, No. 30.

  70. 70.

    For an in-depth discussion on this profile, see Guarda (2013).

  71. 71.

    Probably the legislature also aims to provide incentives for authors, although it is debatable whether this legislative model responds to the real need to incentivize research activity. On this point it is worth considering a precedent of the Constitutional Court establishing the right of scientists to be recognized as authors of their invention. The Court highlights the need to provide incentives for authors even in the academic context. See Corte cost. 20 March 1978, n. 20. See ex plurimis, Ubertazzi (2003b), p. 1109.

  72. 72.

    See Moscarini (2006), pp. 162 ff.; Ubertazzi (2003a), p. 1054.

  73. 73.

    Among others, see the above mentioned Corte Cost., 20 March 1978, n. 20, in Giur. Cost., 1978, 446; Corte Cost., 23 March 1995, n. 108, in AIDA, 1995, 297.

  74. 74.

    Scaccia (2005), p. 198.

  75. 75.

    Orsi Battaglini (2007), p. 1399.

  76. 76.

    Commager (1963), p. 361.

  77. 77.

    The Statement is available at http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure.

  78. 78.

    Oldaker (1992).

  79. 79.

    Strauss (2011), p. 4.

  80. 80.

    Sweezy v. State of N.H. by Wyman, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).

  81. 81.

    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

  82. 82.

    In the US, research and teaching management respond to partly different paradigms. In addition, relationships between professors and research institutions or universities are mostly based on private contracts and university policy, while all US universities are governed by a board composed by external members.

  83. 83.

    For a thorough treatise, see Guarda (2013).

  84. 84.

    See Lorenzato (2009), p. 47.

  85. 85.

    Law of 22 April 1941, No 633.

  86. 86.

    Pila (2010), p. 609.

  87. 87.

    We stake an in-depth look here at the issue regarding the interpretation of Article 43 of the German Copyright Act, which has been a debated rule in the literature and case law. See Wandtke and Bullinger (2014), pp. 30–36; Dreier and Schulze (2013), pp. 1–39; Nordemann et al. (2008).

  88. 88.

    Herrera Diaz (2010), p. 95; Ulrici (2008), pp. 205 ff.; Pramann (2007), pp. 46 ff.; Schricker and Krasser (2004), 419 ss.; Heerman (1999), p. 468; Haberstumpf (2001), pp. 819 and 826.

  89. 89.

    With respect to the US System, see Priest (2012), p. 377; Denicola (2006); Daniel and Pauken (1999), p. 1; Laughlin (2000), pp. 549 and 567; VerSteeg (1990), pp. 381 and 407.

  90. 90.

    A leading case on this matter is Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid 490 US 730 (1989).

  91. 91.

    The subject is fiercely debated, especially with regard to teaching which is more measurable for research institutions from an economic viewpoint. See Townsend (2003).

  92. 92.

    See Packard (2002), p. 275; Centivany (2011), p. 385.

  93. 93.

    In favor of the teacher exception, see Weinstein v. Univ. of Ill., 811 F.2d 1091, 1094 (7th Cir. 1987); Hays and Macdonald v. Sony Corp. of Am., 847 F.2d 412, 416–17 (7th Cir. 1988). More recently Shaul v. Cherry Valley-Springfield Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 177, 186 (2d Cir. 2004); Bosch v. Ball-Kell, 80 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1713, 1719–20 (C.D. Ill. 2006). Contra: Vanderhurst v. Colo. Mountain Coll. Dist., 16 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (D. Colo. 1998); Univ. of Colo. Found. v. Am. Cyanamid, 880 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Colo. 1995), 902 F. Supp. 221 (D. Colo. 1995); Rouse v. Walter & Assocs., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Iowa 2007).

  94. 94.

    Hays and Macdonald v. Sony Corp. of America, cit.

  95. 95.

    On academic freedom in the USA, Sterckx (2012); Van Bouwel (2012); Pinxten (2012); Dupré (2001); Byrne (1989), pp. 251 and 259–260.

  96. 96.

    See Metzger (1988), pp. 1265 and 1279; Byrne (2006), p. 929.

  97. 97.

    Lape (1992).

  98. 98.

    Daniel and Pauken (1999), p. 140. The Author pointed out that the copyright management expenses would be more than the profits deriving from the exploitation of the works. By contrast, software, audiovisual, or other materials for e-learning would be more profitable.

  99. 99.

    See, for instance, the policy of the University of Harvard, available at http://www.techtransfer.harvard.edu/resources/policies/IP/; and the University of Stanford available at http://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy-handbook/intellectual-property/copyright-policy#anchor-533.

  100. 100.

    See, University of Michigan. The policy is available at http://www.lib.umich.edu/files/services/copyright/601.28%20%281%29.pdf.

  101. 101.

    The literature on the trend towards a strengthening of exclusive rights, confining limitations and exceptions, is immense. Among others, see Mazziotti (2013); Torremans (2010); Gasaway (2010); Dusollier (2008), p. 569; Dusollier (2002); Drexl and von Lewinski (2007), p. 3; Hilty and Peukert (2004); Guibault (2002).

  102. 102.

    See Reichman and Okediji (2012). See also Geiger (2006), p. 366.

  103. 103.

    For a clear overview on this subject, see Priest (2012), pp. 9 ff.

  104. 104.

    Guedòn (2001).

  105. 105.

    Russel (2008).

  106. 106.

    For more details, see Priest (2012), pp. 10 ff.

  107. 107.

    See Moscon (2013).

  108. 108.

    v. Reichman and Okediji (2012), op. cit.

  109. 109.

    Among others, see Rice (1990), p. 157; M. A. Lemley, Intellectual Property and Shrink wrap Licenses, (August 8, 2012). Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2126845. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2126845.

  110. 110.

    From a critical perspective, see Hilty (2006), pp. 180 ff.

  111. 111.

    On the specific problem of the exhaustion principle, see CJEU, 3 July 2012, case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. On the UsedSoft decision, see, inter alia, Hilty et al. (2013), p. 263. The subject is analyzed by G. Spedicato in this volume.

  112. 112.

    Horowitz (2007), p. 38.

  113. 113.

    Caso (2013); Jordan (2003), pp. 15 and 92.

  114. 114.

    Suber (2012), pp. 129 ff.

  115. 115.

    See, Caso (2013). With specific reference to the Italian system for evaluating research in the humanities, see Galimberti (2012); Pascuzzi and Caso (2011), p. 685.

  116. 116.

    On Internet developments, see Berners-Lee (1999).

  117. 117.

    Roosendaal and Geurts (1997).

  118. 118.

    Databases are strongly protected at a European level.

  119. 119.

    Horowitz (2007), p. 38.

  120. 120.

    Hilty et al. (2009).

  121. 121.

    On contracts in copyright law, see Schricker (2004), p. 850.

  122. 122.

    For a comprehensive review of the OA literature, see Frosio (2014).

  123. 123.

    Open access principles arise from some scientific communities, such as physicists, in that sharing articles is an established practice. See the arXiv repository at http://arxiv.org/.

  124. 124.

    See Berlin Declaration 2003, available at http://openaccess.mpg.de/286432/Berlin-Declaration. At the European level, see EU Recommendation 17 July 2012 (2012/417/EU) on access to and preservation of scientific information. In the U.S., Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research, available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html.

  125. 125.

    See Harnad et al. (2004).

  126. 126.

    See The Directory of Open Access Repositories—OpenDOAR, at http://www.opendoar.org/.

  127. 127.

    See Millington (2011). A list of journals that allow OA re-publication is available at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PDFandIR.html.

  128. 128.

    Björk and Solomon (2014), Final Report to a consortium of research funders comprising Jisc, Research Libraries UK, Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Science Fund, the Luxembourg National Research Fund and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. Available at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp055910.pdf.

  129. 129.

    Hybrid OA has met with some criticism from the literature. The risk is having to pay twice: first, when the author or the institution pays extra APCs in order to have their papers appear without the gatekeeping charges and, second, because libraries and institutions still have to pay for the journal subscription. See Adams (2007); Björk (2012), p. 1496.

  130. 130.

    See Suber (2012), pp. 65 ff.; Herb (2010).

  131. 131.

    On the interfacing between open and private models, see Hilty and Köklü (2013).

  132. 132.

    See Altmetric Manifesto, on the website http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. See Eve (2013).

  133. 133.

    For a discussion of the so-called open peer review or peer-to-peer review, see Fitzpatrick and Santo (2012).

  134. 134.

    Armbruster (2005). About models that entail post-publication peer review, see Shirky (2008).

  135. 135.

    Some researches show that proper recognition of full Open Access journals by the community remains a major obstacle to overcome if they are to become a viable alternative to scholarly communication. As in other social contexts that rely more on collective action and reciprocal recognition than on a top-down structure, social norms tend to prevail over laws because they seem better able to regulate social interactions. This is underlined by a wealth of literature. Furthermore, though we generally think of academics as a unified group, their social norms are actually localized and vary across disciplines and national boundaries. See Migheli and Ramello (2014); Migheli and Ramello (2013), pp. 149–167; Björk (2004), p. 1; Eger et al. (2013).

  136. 136.

    See Kaufman (2008). More generally, see Albert (2006), p. 253; Stevenson (2010).

  137. 137.

    See Lametti (2010), p. 309. Geiger (2013). On the role of the social norms in determining individuals’ behavior, see the chapter by F. Giovanella in this volume.

  138. 138.

    Suber (2012).

  139. 139.

    With regard to the German legal system, see Lutz (2012); Krujatz (2012); E. Steinhauer (2010). On the US contest, see Priest (2012). For the Italian one, see Caso (2013).

  140. 140.

    See http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/.

  141. 141.

    Articulo 37 (Difùsion en acceso abierto), Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, la Tecnologia y la Innovacion.

  142. 142.

    § 4, Law 7th October 2013, n. 112.

  143. 143.

    Law 1st October 2013 (BGBl. I S. 3714).

  144. 144.

    Marzetti (2013).

  145. 145.

    See the Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980).

  146. 146.

    See the “Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research” at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html.

  147. 147.

    Division G., Title II, Section 218 of PL 110–161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008).

  148. 148.

    Carroll (2008).

  149. 149.

    See Snyder (2009), p. 127.

  150. 150.

    See Suber (2014). The new Law is available at the URL http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ76/pdf/PLAW-113publ76.pdf.

  151. 151.

    See White House Office of Science and Technology, Memorandum for the Heads of Executives Departments and Agencies, Increasing Access to the Results of Federally funded Scientific Research (23 February 2013) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf. See also Suber (2013).

  152. 152.

    The California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Legislation (AB 609). See more at http://www.sparc.arl.org/advocacy/state/ab609#sthash.bi9lAuau.dpuf.

  153. 153.

    Guarda (2014).

  154. 154.

    See Guibault (2013).

  155. 155.

    The scope of this expression has still not been clarified by the legislature. According to some first comments, “scientific work” includes not only written works but also technical projects, designs, tables, three-dimensional models, etc. See Wandtke and Bullinger (2014), pp. 15–25.

  156. 156.

    See the “Protest gegen die Diskriminierung der Hochschulwissenschaft im Urheberrecht,” open petition available at https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/protest-gegen-die-diskriminierung-der-hochschulwissenschaft-im-urheberrecht.

  157. 157.

    See von Lewinski and Thum (2011).

  158. 158.

    See the Statute at http://www.landesrecht-bw.de/jportal/;jsessionid=266382535A5E6903F880C454DA1E532F.jpa4?quelle=jlink&query=HSchulG+BW&psml=bsbawueprod.psml&max=true&aiz=true. On this issue, the Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg appointed a commission of experts to work on the issue, which elaborated a strategic concept available at http://mwk.baden-wuerttemberg.de/uploads/media/066_PM_Anlage_E-Science_Web.pdf.

  159. 159.

    About the critical aspects of obligations to academic authors, see Hilty et al. (2013).

  160. 160.

    See Articles 9 and 10 of the Landeshochschulgesetz. Gesetz über die Hochschulen in Baden-Württemberg (Landeshochschulgesetz—LHG) Vom 1. Januar 2005.

  161. 161.

    See Kuhlen (2013).

  162. 162.

    See Sprang (2014).

  163. 163.

    Meanwhile, the topic is analyzed with regard to the US legal framework by Copyright and the Harvard Open Access Mandate, cit.

  164. 164.

    For an overview, see Van Eechoud et al. (2004). See also IVIR, Study on the Implementation and Effect in Member States’ Laws of Directive 2001/29, Final Report (February 2007), available at http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/Infosoc_report_2007.pdf.

References

  • Adams (2007) Copyright and research: an archivangelist’s perspective. SCRIPTed 4(3):285. doi:10.2966/scrip.040307.285

  • Albert KM (2006) Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. J Med Libr Assoc 94(3): 253–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster C (2005) Open access in social and cultural science: innovative moves to enhance access, inclusion and impact in scholarly communication. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved September 28, 2006: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=434782

  • Berners-Lee T (1999) Weaving the web. The original design and ultimate destiny of the world wide web by its inventor. HarperCollins, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethge H (2009) In: Sachs (ed) Grundgesetz Kommentar. C.H. Beck, Munich, p 220

    Google Scholar 

  • Björk BC (2004) Open access to scientific publications – an analysis of the barriers to change. Inf Res 9(2):170. http://InformationR.net/ir/9-2/paper170.html

  • Björk BC (2012) The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles – a failed experiment? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 63(8):1496–1504

    Google Scholar 

  • Björk BC, Solomon D (2014) Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges, March 2014. Final Report to a consortium of research funders comprising Jisc, Research ibraries UK, Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Science Fund, the Luxembourg National Research Fund and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp055910.pdf

  • Braegelmann T (2009–2010) Copyright law in and under the constitution – the constitutional scope and limits to copyright law in the United States in comparison with the scope and limits imposed by constitutional and European Law on copyright law in Germany. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 27:99–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer S (1970) The uneasy case for copyright: a study of copyright in books, photocopies, and computer programs. Harv Law Rev 84 (2):281–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown AEL (2012) Intellectual property, human rights and competition. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne JP (1989) Academic freedom: a “Special Concern of the First Amendment”. Yale Law J 99:251, 259–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne JP (2006) Constitutional academic freedom after Grutter. Getting real about the four freedoms of a university. Univ Colorado Law Rev 77:929–953

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll MW (2008) Complying with the NIH public access policy – copyright considerations and options. SPARC/Science Commons/ARL

    Google Scholar 

  • Caso R (2013) Scientific knowledge unchained: Verso una Policy dell’Università Italiana sull’ Open Access. The Trento Law and Technology Research Group Research Papers Series No. 16, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2264920 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2264920

  • Centivany A (2011) Paper tigers: copyright and scholarly publishing. Mich Telecommun Technol Law Rev 17:385–416. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1893590

  • Commager HS (1963) The university and freedom. J Higher Educ 34(7):361–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J (2000) The Sovietization of higher education in the Czech Lands, East Germany, and Poland during the Stalinist period (1948–54). In: Péteri G, David-Fo M (eds) Academia in Upheaval. Greenwood Publishing Group, London, p 71

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel PTK, Pauken PD (1999) The impact of the electronic media on instructor creativity and institutional ownership within copyright law. Educ Law Rep 132:1–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Daughtrey WH (1991) The legal nature of academic freedom in United States colleges and universities. Richmond Law Rev 25:213–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Denicola R (2006) Copyright and open access: reconsidering university ownership of faculty research. Nebraska Law Rev 85(2). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2448356

  • Dershowitz A (2005) Rights from wrongs. A secular Theory of the Origin of Rights. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier T (2013) How much property is there in intellectual property? The German civil law perspective. In: Howe H, Griffiths J (eds) Concepts of property in intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 94

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier H, Schulze G (2013) UrhG IV ed., 2013, § 43 Urheber in Arbeits- oder Dienstverhaeltnissen. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 1 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl J, von Lewinski S (2007) The digitizing of literary and artistic works. Electronic J Comp Law 11:3. http://www.ejcl.org

  • Dupré J (2001) Human nature and the limits of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusollier S (2002) Fair use by design in the European Copyright Directive of 2001: an empty promise. University of Namur. Communication of the ACM 46: 51. http://www.cfp2002.org/fairuse/dusollier.pdf

  • Dusollier S (2008) The role of the lawmaker and of the judge in the conflict between copyright exceptions, freedom of expression and technological measures. Copyright and Freedom of Expression. In: ALAI 2006 Barcelona, Huygens Editorial, p 569–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Eger T, Scheufen M, Meierrieks D (2013) The determinants of open access publishing: survey evidence from Germany (March 13, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2232675

  • Epping V, Hillgruber C (2009) Kommentar, C.H. Beck, Munich, p 179

    Google Scholar 

  • Eve MP (2013) Before the law: open access, quality control and the future of peer review. In: Vincent N, Wickham C (eds) Debating open access. The British Academy. Carlton House Terrace, London, p 68. http://issuu.com/thebritishacademy/docs/debating_open_access-ed_vincent_and

  • Farell J, Shapiro C (2004) Intellectual property, competition and information technology. Working paper no. 45, University of California. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=527782

  • Fechner F (1999) Geistiges Eigentum und Verfassung, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehling M (2010) In: Bonner Grundgesetz Kommentar, C.F. Müller Verlag, Heidelberg p 74

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick K, Santo A (2012) Open review: a study of contexts and practices. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation White Paper, Media Commons Press. http://mcpress.media-commons.org/open-review/files/2012/06/MediaCommons_Open_Review_White_Paper_final.pdf

  • Frosio GF (2014) Open access publishing: a literature review. CREATe working paper 2014/1. http://www.create.ac.uk/publications/000011

  • Galimberti P (2012) Qualità e Quantità: Stato dell’Arte della Valutazione della Ricerca nelle Scienze Umane in Italia. JLIS 3(1). doi:10.4403/jlis.it-5617

  • Gasaway L (2010) Archiving and preservation in US Copyright Law. In: Derclay E (ed) Copyright and cultural heritage. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2006) Copyright and free access to information for a fair balance of interests in a globalised world. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 28(7):366–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2013) The social function of intellectual property rights, or how ethics can influence the shape and use of IP law. In: G.B. Dinwoodie (ed.), Intellectual Property Law: Methods and Perspectives, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 153

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller PG (2010) A German approach to fair use. Test cases for TRIPS criteria for copyright limitations. J Copyright Soc U S A 57:553–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarda P (2013) Creation of software within the academic context: knowledge transfer, intellectual property rights and licenses. Int Rev Intellect Prop Competition Law 44(5):494–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarda P (2014) Consortium agreement and intellectual property rights within the European Union Research and Innovation Programs. EIPR (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Guedòn JC (2001) In Oldenburg’s long shadow: librarians, research scientists, publishers and control of scientific publishing. Association of research library, Washington. http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/in-oldenburgs-long-shadow.pdf

  • Guibault L (2002) Copyright limitations and contracts: an analysis of the contractual overridability of limitations on copyright. Wolters Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibault L (2011) Owning the right to open up access to scientific publications. In: Guibault L, Angelopolous C (eds) Open content licensing from theory to practice. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibault L (2013) Licensing research data under open access condition. In: Beldiman D (ed) Information and knowledge, 21st century challenges in intellectual property and knowledge governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Haberstumpf H (2001) Wem gehören Forschungsergebnisse? ZUM 819–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnad S, Brody T, Vallieres F, Carr L, Hitchcock S, Gingras Y, Oppenheim C, Stamerjoanns H, Hilf ER (2004) The Access/Impact Problem and the green and the gold roads to open access. Serials Review 30(4). doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.013

  • Heerman P (1999) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. GRUR, 468–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer LR (2011) Human rights and intellectual property. Mapping the global interface. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Herb U (February 2010) Sociological implications of scientific publishing: open access, science, society, democracy and the digital divide. First Monday 15(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera Diaz JR (2010) Ownership of copyright in works created in employment relationships: comparative study of the Law of Colombia, Germany and the United States of America. Revista la propriedad Immaterial 14:95–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty R (2006) Five lessons about copyright in the information society. J Copyright Soc U S A 53:103–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty R, Köklü K (2013) Access and use: open vs. proprietary worlds. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 14-07, 29 April 2013. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2425637 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2425637

  • Hilty R, Peukert A (eds) (2004) Balance of interests in copyright law, Nomos, Baden Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty R, Kruijatz S, Bajon B, Frueh A, Kur A, Drexl K, Geiger C (2009) European Commission – Green Paper: copyright in the knowledge Economy – Comments by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law. IIC 40:309–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty RM, Köklü K, Hafenbrädl F (2013) Software agreements: stocktaking and outlook – lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle Case from a comparative law perspective. IIC 44(3):263–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz P (2007) Evaluate me!’: conflicted thoughts on gatekeeping in legal scholarship’s new age. Conn L Rev 39(1):38–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarass H, Pieroth B (2014) Grundgesetz Kommentar. C.H. Beck, Munich, p 121

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan KA (2003) Financial conflicts of interest in human subjects research: proposals for a more effective regulatory scheme. Wash Lee Law Rev 60:17–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Karran T (2007) Academic freedom in Europe: a preliminary comparative analysis. Higher Educ Policy 20:289–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman R (2008) Publishing forms and contracts. Oxford University Press: New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman JM (2012) The Creative Rights Act of 2020, a new deal for promoting the progress of creativity, 17 April 2012. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2135862

  • Kommers PD (1997) The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Duke University Press, Durham-London

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasser R, Schricker G (1998) Patent und Urheberrecht an Hochschulen. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlen R (2013) Stellungsname del Aktionbündnisses zum Entwurf eines Dritter Gesetzes zur Änderung Hochschulrechtlicher Vorschriften des Ministeriums für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst (MWK), Baden-Wurttemberg. Stand 15.11.2013. http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/docs/stellungnahme-AB-auf-MWK-Ba-Wue.pdf

  • Krujatz S (2012) Open Access: Der Offene Zugang Zu Wissenschaftlichen Informationen Und Die Okonomische Bedeutung Urheberrechtlicher Ausschlussmacht. Mohr Siebeck, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Lametti D (2010) How virtue ethics might help erase C-32’s conceptual incoherence. In: Geist M (a cura di) From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda. Irwin Law, Toronto, p 309

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes WM, Posner R (2003) The economic structure of intellectual property law, Belknap Press, US

    Google Scholar 

  • Lape L (1992) Ownership of copyrightable works of university professors: the interplay between the copyright act and university copyright policies. Vill Law Rev 37:223–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin K (2000) Who owns the copyright to faculty-created web sites?: The work for hire doctrine’s applicability to internet resources created for distance learning and traditional classroom uses. B C Law Rev 41:549–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinemann F (1998) Die Sozialbindung des Geistigen Eigentums, Nomos, Baden Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Leistner M (2004) Farewell to the “Professor’s Privilege”. Ownership of patents for academic inventions in Germany under the reformed employees’ Inventions Act 2002. IIC 35:859–871

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzato F (2009) Titolarità e contratti sulle pubblicazioni scientifiche. In: Caso (ed) Pubblicazioni scientifiche, diritto d’autore e Open Access. Atti del Convegno tenuto presso la Facoltà di Giurisprudenza di Trento il 20 giugno 2008, Universitá degli Studi, Facoltá di Giurispridenza, Trento p 47

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludington H (2011) The dogs that did not bark: the silence of the legal academy during World War II. J Legal Educ 60 (3):397–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz A (2012) Zugang zu Wissenschaftlichen Informationen in der digitalen Welt. Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangolt H, Klein F, Starck C (2010) Das Bonner Grundgesetz. Kommentar, Verlag Vahlen, Munich p 57

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzetti M (2013) Argentina passes open access act for publicly funded research, 16 December 2013. http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/16/argentina-passes-open-access-act-making-publicly-funded-research-available/

  • Mazziotti G (2013) Copyright in the EU digital single market. Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Merloni F (1990) Autonomie e libertà nel Sistema della ricerca scientifica. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1942) The normative structure of science. In: Merton RK (ed) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger W (1988) Profession and constitution: two definitions of academic freedom. Tex Law Rev 66:1265–1275

    Google Scholar 

  • Migheli M, Ramello GB (2013) Open access, social norms and publication choice. Eur J Law Econ 35(2):149–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migheli M, Ramello GB (2014) Open access journals & academics’ behaviour. Working paper no. 3/2014. http://www.icer.it/docs/wp2014/ICERwp03-14.pdf

  • Millington P (2011) SHERPA/RoMEO, 60 % of journals allow immediate archiving of peer-reviewed articles – but it gets much much better…, 24 November 2011. http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/11/24/60-of-journals-allow-immediate-archiving-of-peer-reviewed-articles-but-it-gets-much-much-better/

  • Monotti A, Ricketson S (2003) Universities and intellectual property: ownership and exploitation. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morelli S (1996) L’applicazione diretta della Costituzione nei rapporti interindividuali. Giust. civ. II:537

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscarini A (2006) Proprietà private e tradizioni costituzionali comuni. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscon V (2013) Misure tecnologiche di protezione (Technological proctection measures). In Digesto civ., Agg., Utet, Torino, p 386

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Langer F, Scheufer M (2013) Academic publishing and open access. In: Handke, C. / Towse R. (eds.): Handbook of the Digital Creative Economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 365

    Google Scholar 

  • Netanel NW (2008) Copyright paradox. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Niioka H (2001) Klinische Versuche im Patentrecht. Heymanns, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordemann W, Nordemann A, Nordemann JB (eds) (2008) Urheberrecht, Kommentar zum Urheberrechtsgesetz, Verlagsgesetz, Urheberrechtswahrnehmungsgesetz, § 43 Urheber in Arbeits- oder Dienstverhaeltnissen. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldaker L (1992) Threats to academic freedom in higher education. In: ERIC (conference paper)

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsi Battaglini A (2007) Libertà scientifica, Libertà accademica e valori costituzionali, in Scritti giuridici, Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Packard A (2002) Copyright or copy wrong: an analysis of university claims to faculty work. Comm Law Policy 7:275–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascuzzi G, Caso R (2011) Valutazione dei prodotti scientifici nell’area giuridica e ruolo delle tecnologie digitali. Riv.dir. civ., 685

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlingeri P (1980) Norme costituzionali e rapporti di diritto civile. Rass. dir. civ. 1:95

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2004) Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Leher sind frei. Die Freiheit der Lehre entbindet nicht von der Treue zur Verfassung. In: Dreier H (ed) Grundgesetz Kommentar, Mohr Siebeck , Tuebingen p 715

    Google Scholar 

  • Pflueger T, Ertmann D (2004) E-Publishing und Open Access Konsequenzen für das Urheberrecht im Hochschulbereichin. ZUM 436–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Pila J (2010) Who owns the intellectual property rights in academic work? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 609

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinxten H (2012) The humanities under fire? In: Vanderbeeken R, Le Roy F, Stalpaert C, Aerts D (eds) Drunk on capitalism. An interdisciplinary reflection on market, economy, art and science. Springer, Berlin p 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Pramann O (2007) Publikationsklauseln in Forschungsverträgen und Forschungsprotokollen. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Press E, Washburn J (2000) The Kept University. Atlantic Monthly, 285(3):39–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest E (2012) Copyright and the Harvard open access mandate. Northwestern J Technol Intellect Prop 10:377. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1890467

  • Reichman JH, Okediji R (2012) When copyright law and science collide: empowering digitally integrated research methods on a global scale. Minn Law Rev 96(4):1362–1480

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice A (1990) Licensing the use of computer program copies and the copyright act first sale doctrine. Jurimetrics J 30:157–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson JA (1977–1978) The scientist’s right to research: a constitutional analysis. Calif Law Rev 1203–1279

    Google Scholar 

  • Roosendaal HE, Geurts PA (1997) Forces and functions in scientific communication: an analysis of their interplay. In: Proceeding of Cooperative Research Information System in Physics (CRISP 97), Oldenburg, 91.08.1997–4.9.1997

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffert M, Steinecke S (2011) The global administrative law of science. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Russel RD (2008) The business of academic publishing: a strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship. http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html

  • Sanberger G (2006) Behindert das Urheberrecht den Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen Publikationen? ZUM 818–831

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso A, Sellaroli V, Fabio E (2007) What constitutional protection for freedom of scientific research? J Med Ethics 33(6):342–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Scaccia G (2005) Il bilanciamento degli interessi in materia di proprietà intellettuale. AIDA 198

    Google Scholar 

  • Schack H (2010) Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübbing

    Google Scholar 

  • Schricker G (1998) Wer ist der Verfasser? Die Autorenangabe bei wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen. Forschung & Lehre 5(11):584–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Schricker G (2004) German and comparative intellectual property law. Efforts for a better law on copyright contracts in Germany. A never-ending story? IIC, 35:850–858

    Google Scholar 

  • Schricker G, Krasser R (2004) Urheber- und Erfinderrecht des wissenschaftlichen Personals, in Hochschulrecht. Ein Handbuch für die Praxis, M. Hartmer/H. Detmer, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavell S (2010) Should copyright of academic works be abolished? J Legal Anal 2(1):301–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirky C (2008) Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder S (2009) Free-for-all: public access and publisher rights collide in the fair copy-right in Research Works Act of 2009. DePaul J Art Technol Intellect Prop Law 20:127–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprang C (2014) JustiziarStellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Dritten Gesetzes zur Änderung hochschulrechtlicher Vorschriften des Landes Baden-Württemberg, Frankfurt am Main, 9 February 2014. http://www.boersenverein.de/sixcms/media.php/976/stellungnahme_3.hrag_bawu_20131128.pdf

  • Steinhauer EW (2010) Das Recht auf Sichtbarkeit, Überlegungen zu Open Access und Wissenschaftsfreiheit. Münster, Hagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx S (2012) Enclosing the academic commons – increasing knowledge transfer or eroding academic values? In: Vanderbeeken R, Le Roy F, Stalpaert C, Aerts D (eds) Drunk on capitalism. An interdisciplinary reflection on market, economy, art and science. Springer, Berlin, p 49

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson A (2010) The economic case for open access in academic publishing. Ars Technica, 29 November 2010. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/the-economic-case-for-open-access-in-academicpublishing.ars

  • Strauss NS (2011) Anything but academic: how copyright’s work-for-hire doctrine affects professors, graduate students, and K-12 teachers in the information age. Richmond J Law Technol: 1–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Suber P (2012) Open access. MIT Press, Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  • Suber P (2013) Second shoe drop: new White House directive mandates OA, 22 February 2013. https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/8hzviMJeVHJ

  • Suber P (2014) New open-access mandates in the US, 17 January, 2014. https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/BxaAbKqv5HS

  • Tartari V, Breschi S (2012) Set them free: scientist’s evaluations of the benefits and costs of university – industry research collaboration. Ind Corp Change 21(5):1117–1147

    Google Scholar 

  • Torremans PLC (2008) Copyright (and other intellectual property rights) as a human right. In: Torremans PLC (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 197

    Google Scholar 

  • Torremans P (2010) Archiving exceptions: where are we and where do we need to go? In: Derclay E (ed) Copyright and cultural heritage. Preservation and access to works in a digital world. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend E (2003) Legal and policy responses to the disappearing “teacher Exception”, or copyright ownership in the 21st century university. Minn Intellect Prop Rev 4:209

    Google Scholar 

  • Towse R (2001) Creativity, incentive and reward: an economic analysis of copyright and culture in the information age. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner GRG (1988) The price of freedom. In: Tight M (ed) Academic freedom and responsibility. Stony Stratford, England, Open University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubertazzi LC (2003a) Introduzione al diritto europeo della proprietà intellettuale. Contratto e impresa Europa, 1054–1108

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubertazzi LC (2003b) Le invenzioni dei ricercatori. Contratto e impresa Europa, 1109–1122

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrici B (2008) Vermögensrechtliche Grundfragen des Arbeitnehmerurheberrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bouwel J (2012) What is there beyond Mertonian and dollar green science? exploring the contours of epistemic democracy In: Vanderbeeken R, Le Roy F, Stalpaert C, Aerts D (eds) Drunk on capitalism. An interdisciplinary reflection on market, economy, art and science. Springer, Berlin, p 35

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eechoud M, Hugenholtz PB, Guibault L, Van Gompel S, Helberger N (2004) Harmonizing European copyright law. The challenges of better lawmaking. Alphen aan den Rijn Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • VerSteeg R (1990) Copyright and the educational process: the right of teacher inception. Iowa Law Rev 75:397–407

    Google Scholar 

  • von Falck, Schmaltz C (2005) University inventions: classification and remuneration in Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, the U.S. and Japan. IIC, 36:912–927

    Google Scholar 

  • von Lewinski S, Thum D (2011) Spezifisce Fragen zum Auslandsbezug des geplanten Zweitveroeffentlichunggsrechts nach § 38 Abs. 1 S. 3 and 4 UrhG neu. IUWIS. http://www.iuwis.de/publikation/spezifische-fragen-zum-auslandsbezug-des-geplanten-zweitver%C3%B6ffentlichungsrechts-nach-%C2%A7-3

  • Wandtke A, Bullinger W (2014) Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht, IV edn. § 43 Urheber in Arbeits- oder Dienstverhaeltnissen. C.H. Beck, Munich, p 30

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu PK (2009) The objectives and principles of the TRIPS agreement. Houston Law Rev 46:979–1046

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition where I had the opportunity to conduct my work taking advantage of the lively research environment and the privilege to discuss my ideas with experts working on tangential research projects.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Valentina Moscon

Authors
  1. Valentina Moscon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentina Moscon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, Università di Trento, Trento, Italy

    Roberto Caso

  2. Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, Università di Trento, Trento, Italy

    Federica Giovanella

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moscon, V. (2015). Academic Freedom, Copyright, and Access to Scholarly Works: A Comparative Perspective. In: Caso, R., Giovanella, F. (eds) Balancing Copyright Law in the Digital Age. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44648-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation