Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Copyright Law Framework and Its Interaction with Open Access Repositories in Europe

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

The paper examines the European copyright framework and its interaction with open access repositories. Access to information resources has become a modern necessity that needs to be met to share equitably the wealth of the European society. The Directives with intellectual property provisions to enhance copyright law policy makers are the foundation of the European copyright regime. This statement helps me to clarify the design and assumptions underlying open access practice in Europe. The paper analyses strengths and short-comings of these Directives in relation to copyright protection and open access practice among European member states.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

  2. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).

  3. Recital (3) of the Directive.

  4. Recital (9) of the Directive.

  5. The associated program with ‘Europe 2020’ flagship initiative, ‘Horizon 2020’ which introduced the concept of open access in the European context, it will be considered in the following section.

  6. These two objectives are the paragraphs of article 18 of the European Regulation No 1291/2013.

References

  1. Abrahamson P. Welfare and Families in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antelman K. Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College Res Libr. 2004;65(5):372–82. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.5.372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Antezana ME. European Union internet copyright directive as even more than it envisions: toward a supraeu harmonization of copyright policy and theory. Boston College Int Comp Law Rev. 2003;26:415.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Apostolache MC. The relevance of the European regulations regarding the improvement of transparency and integrity in local public administration. Analysis of the implications on the legislation. Jurid Trib. 2015;5(1):90–8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beniger J. The control revolution: technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, Guðnason G. Open access to the scientific journal literature: situation 2009. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(6):e11273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Breschi S, Cusmano L. Unveiling the texture of a European research area: emergence of oligarchic networks under EU framework programmes. Int J Technol Manag. 2004;27(8):747–72. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2004.004992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bretherton C, Vogler J. The European Union as a global actor. London: Psychology Press; 1999.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Button KJ, Pentecost EJ. Testing for convergence of the EU regional economies. Econ Inq. 1995;33(4):664–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01887.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Casey M. The electronic information industry in Europe an analysis of trends and prospects in less developed economies. J Librariansh Inf Sci. 1991;23(1):21–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/096100069102300103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Castells M. The internet galaxy: reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford: OUP; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Chalmers D, Davies G. European Union law: cases and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan L, Cuplinskas D, Eisen M, Friend F, Genova Y, Guédon J-C, Hagemann M et al. Budapest open access initiative; 2002. February 14, 2002. http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/read.

  14. Copeland P, Papadimitriou D. The EU’s lisbon strategy: evaluating success, understanding failure. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Cowles MG, Caporaso JA, Risse-Kappen T. Transforming Europe: Europeanization and domestic change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Craig P, de Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford: OUP; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Crouch C. After the Euro: shaping institutions for governance in the wake of European Monetary Union. Oxford: OUP; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Cuadrado-Roura JR. Regional convergence in the European Union: from hypothesis to the actual trends. Ann Reg Sci. 2001;35(3):333–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001680100054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cullen R, Chawner B. Institutional repositories, open access, and scholarly communication: a study of conflicting paradigms. J Acad Librariansh. 2011;37(6):460–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2011.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Davies N. Europe: a history. New York: Random House; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davison MJ. The legal protection of databases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. de la Porte C, Pochet P, Room BG. Social benchmarking, policy making and new governance in the EU. J Eur Soc Policy. 2001;11(4):291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/095892870101100401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dieckhoff M, Gallie D. The renewed lisbon strategy and social exclusion policy. Ind Relat J. 2007;38(6):480–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2338.2007.00460.x.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dinan D. Ever closer union: an introduction to European integration. 4th ed. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Dorrucci E, Ioannou D, Mongelli F, Terzi A. Europe’s challenging economic integration: insights from a new index. VoxEU.Org (blog); 2015. April 15, 2015. http://voxeu.org/article/economic-integration-europe-insights-new-index.

  26. Dreier T, Hugenholtz PB. Concise European copyright law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Drexl J, Nérisson S, Trumpke F, Hilty RM. Comments of the Max Planck institute for intellectual property and competition law on the proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market COM (2012)372. IIC Int Rev Intell Prop Compet Law. 2013;44(3):322–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0024-7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Eberhard-Harribey L. Corporate social responsibility as a new paradigm in the European policy: how CSR comes to legitimate the European regulation process. Corp Gov Int J Bus Soc. 2006;6(4):358–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700610689487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. EBLIDA, and IFLA. Modernisation of EU copyright rules: yes, but… ; 2015. http://www.eblida.org/news/modernisation-of-eu-copyright-rules-yes,-but.html.

  30. van Eechoud MMM. Harmonizing European copyright law: the challenges of better lawmaking. The Hague: Kluwer Law International; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Enserink M. In dramatic statement, European leaders call for ‘immediate’ open access to all scientific papers by 2020; 2016. Science.Org. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/dramatic-statement-european-leaders-call-immediate-open-access-all-scientific-papers.

  32. European Commission. Green Paper on Copyright and the Challenge of Technology - Copyright Issues Requiring Immediate Action. COM (88) 172 Final, 7 June 1988; 1988. http://ec.europa.eu/green-papers/pdf/green_paper_copyright_and_chanllenge_of_thecnology_com_(88)_172_final.pdf.

  33. European Commission. Europe and Basic Research. Communication from the Commission COM(2004) 9 final. Brussels; 2004. http://cordis.europa.eu/pub/era/docs/com2004_9_en.pdf.

  34. European Commission. Copyright in the Knowledge Economy. 532 final. Brussels; 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/copyright-infso/20091019_532_en.pdf.

  35. European Commission. Report on the Implementation and Effect of the Resale Right Directive (2001/84/EC). COM 878 final. Brussels: European Commission; 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/resale/report_en.pdf.

  36. European Commission. Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights. 297 final; 2011. http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.int-opinions.19154.

  37. European Commission. Towards a Modern, More European Copyright Framework; 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=12526.

  38. European Commission. Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020; 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf.

  39. European Council. Council Directive 93/98/EEC Harmonizing the Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights; 1993. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31993L0098.

  40. European Parliament, and European Council. “Directive 2009/24/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs; 2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:mi0016.

  41. European Research Council. ERC Scientific Council Statement on Open Access; 2006. https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/press_release/files/erc_scc_statement_2006_open_access_0.pdf.

  42. European Research Council. Open Access Guidelines for Researchers Funded by the ERC; 2012. https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/open_access_policy_researchers_funded_ERC.pdf.

  43. Evens T, Donders K. Broadcast market structures and retransmission payments: a European perspective. Media Cult Soc. 2013;35(4):417–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443713483797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ficsor M. Collective management of copyright and related rights. Geneva: WIPO; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Garrett G. The politics of legal integration in the European Union. Int Org. 1995;49(01):171–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gaspar R, Aksu B, Cuine A, Danhof M, Takac MJ-M, Linden HH, Link A, et al. Towards a European strategy for medicines research (2014–2020): the EUFEPS position paper on Horizon 2020. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2012;47(5):979–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2012.09.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gentleman RC, Carey VJ, Bates DM, Bolstad B, Dettling M, Dudoit S, Ellis B, et al. Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biol. 2004;5:R80. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2004-5-10-r80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gervais DJ. Collective management of copyright and related rights. The Hague: Kluwer Law International; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ginsburgh V. The economic consequences of droit de suite in the European Union. Econ Anal Policy. 2005;35(1–2):61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(05)50004-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Goodwin I, Spittle S. The European Union and the information society discourse, power and policy. New Media Soc. 2002;4(2):225–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144480200400206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Granieri M, Renda A. Innovation law and policy in the European Union: towards Horizon 2020. New York: Springer; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Hansmann H, Santilli M. Royalties for Artists versus Royalties for Authors and Composers. J Cult Econ. 2001;25(4):259–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017923625973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Harbottle G. The implementation in England and Wales of the European enforcement directive. J Intell Prop Law Pract. 2006;1(11):719–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpl170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Harnad S. The implementation of the Berlin declaration on open access. D-Lib Mag. 2005;11(3):721. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/260690/.

  55. Harnad S. Open access: a green light for archiving. Nature. 2012;487(7407):302. https://doi.org/10.1038/487302b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Héritier A. Composite democracy in Europe: the role of transparency and access to information. J Eur Public Policy. 2003;10(5):814–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176032000124104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hernández-Borges AA, Cabrera-Rodríguez R, Montesdeoca-Melián A, Martínez-Pineda B, Torres-Álvarez ML, de Arcaya MLT-Á, Jiménez-Sosa A. Awareness and attitude of Spanish medical authors to open access publishing and the ‘author pays’ model. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(4):449-e218.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hix S, Høyland B. The political system of the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Jantz RC, Wilson MC. Institutional repositories: faculty deposits, marketing, and the reform of scholarly communication. J Acad Librariansh. 2008;34(3):186–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Johnson R. Institutional repositories: Partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly communication. D-Lib Mag. 2002;8(11):193. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/johnson/11johnson.html.

  61. Jones E. The European miracle: environments, economies and geopolitics in the history of Europe and Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. Jordana J. Governing telecommunications and the new information society in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  63. Kohler-Koch B, Eising R. The transformation of governance in the European Union. London: Psychology Press; 1999.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Kuhlmann S, Arie R. The challenge of addressing grand challenges: a think piece of how innovation can be driven towards the ‘Grand Challenges’ as defined under the prospective European Union Framework Programme Horizon 2020. University of Twente; 2014. http://doc.utwente.nl/91786/1/The_challenge_of_addressing_Grand_Challenges.pdf.

  65. Lang M, Aigner H-J, Scheuerle U, Stefaner M, editors. Cfc legislation, tax treaties and EC law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Le Galès P. Regulations and governance in European cities. Int J Urban Reg Res. 1998;22(3):482–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lucarelli S, Fioramonti L. External perceptions of the European Union as a global actor. London: Routledge; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Luukkonen T. Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: emerging ERC practices. Res Eval. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs001.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Luukkonen T. The European research council and the European Research funding landscape. Sci Public Policy. 2014;41(1):29–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Majone G, Baake P. Regulating Europe. London: Psychology Press; 1996.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  71. Manners I, Whitman R. The foreign policies of European Union Member States. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Marriott S. The emergence of live television talk. Text Interdiscip J Study Discourse. 2009;17(2):181–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1997.17.2.181.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Mazziotti G. EU digital copyright law and the end-user. New York: Springer; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Mens T. The ERCIM Working Group on Software Evolution: The Past and the Future. In: Proceedings of the joint international and annual ERCIM workshops on principles of software evolution (IWPSE) and software evolution (Evol) workshops, 1–4. IWPSE-Evol’09. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1145/1595808.1595809.

  75. Michalis M. Governing European communications; from unification to coordination. Reference and Research Book News 2008;23(1):2.

  76. Moussis N. Access to the European Union: law, economics, policies, vol. 1. 20th ed. Beaverton: Ringgold; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Nedeva M, Stampfer M. From ‘Science in Europe’ to ‘European Science’. Science. 2012;336(6084):982–3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Nérisson S. The rental and lending rights directive. In: EU copyright law. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014. p. 149–202. http://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781781952429.xml.

  79. Olsen JP. Reforming European institutions of governance. JCMS. 2002;40(4):581–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00389.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Palmer AK, Vinje TC. The EC directive on the legal protection of computer software: new law governing software development. Duke J Comp Int Law. 1992;2(1):65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Quah D. Internet cluster emergence. Eur Econ Rev. 2000;44(4–6):1032–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(99)00055-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ramakrishnan R, Gehrke J. Database management systems. 2nd ed. Berkeley: Osborne/McGraw-Hill; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Rannenberg K, Royer D. The future of identity in the information society: challenges and opportunities. New York: Springer; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  84. Reddy MB. Droit de Suite: why American fine artists should have a right to a resale royalty. Loyola Los Angeles Entertain Law J. 1994;15:509.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Revesz P. Introduction to databases: from biological to spatio-temporal. New York: Springer; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ricketson S. International copyright and neighbouring rights: the berne convention and beyond/Sam Ricketson and Jane Ginsburg. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ringnalda A. Orphan Works, Mass Rights Clearance, and Online Libraries: The Flaws of the Draft Orphan Works Directive and Extended Collective Licensing as a Solution. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2369974. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2011. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2369974.

  88. Rodrigues E. Open Access to Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020: What Are the Requirements and How Can Institutional Repositories and OpenAIRE Help to Meet Them? Article. 2014; 2014. http://sci-gems.math.bas.bg:8080/jspui/handle/10525/2404.

  89. Rodríguez AA. The relationship between copyright software protection and piracy: evidence from Europe. Eur J Law Econ. 2006;21(1):29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-006-5670-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Rosati E. The orphan works directive, or throwing a stone and hiding the hand. J Intell Prop Law Pract. 2013;8(4):303–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Rosenberg N. Knowledge and innovation for economic development: should universities be economic institutions? In: Knowledge for inclusive development. Greenwood Publishing Group; 2002. p. 35–47.

  92. Rosenbloum RA. The rental rights directive: a step in the right and wrong directions. Loyola Los Angeles Entertain Law J. 1995;15:547.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Sabel CF, Zeitlin J. Experimentalist governance in the European Union: towards a new architecture. Oxford: OUP; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Samuelson P. Five challenges for regulating the global information society. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 234743. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2000. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=234743.

  95. Samuelson P, Vinje TC, Cornish WR. Does copyright protection under the EU software directive extend to computer program behaviour, languages and interfaces?” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1974890. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2011. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1974890.

  96. Sandholtz W. Institutions and collective action: the new telecommunications in Western Europe. World Polit. 1993;45(2):242–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Sandholtz W, Sweet AS. European integration and supranational governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  98. Schimmelfennig F. The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe: rules and rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  99. Schneider M. The European Union database directive. Berkeley Technol Law J. 1998;13(1):551–64.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Schroter S, Tite L. Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(3):141–8.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Seville C. EU intellectual property law and policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  102. Silverman I. SAS: major software copyright ruling upheld. J Intell Prop Law Pract. 2014;9(3):179–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Solow JL. An economic analysis of the Droit de Suite. J Cult Econ. 1998;22(4):209–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007505016512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Taylor-Gooby P. New risks, new welfare: the transformation of the European Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  105. The Hon Mr Justice Arnold. 2010. SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2010] EWHC 1829 (Ch). EWHC (Ch).

  106. Tschmuck P. The emergence of the phonographic industry within the music industry. In: Creativity and innovation in the music industry. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28430-4_2.

  107. Tsebelis G, Garrett G. The institutional foundations of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism in the European Union. Int Org. 2001;55(2):357–90. https://doi.org/10.1162/00208180151140603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Vuopala A. Assessment of the orphan works issue and costs for rights clearance. Access to Information Unit 34. European Commission; 2010. http://www.ace-film.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Copyright_anna_report-1.pdf.

  109. Wald J. Legislating the golden rule: achieving comparable protection under the European Union database directive. Fordham Int Law J. 2001;25:987.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Webster F. Theories of the information society. New York: Routledge; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Whitley R, Kristensen PH. The changing European firm: limits to convergence. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  112. WIPO. WIPO performances and phonograms treaty (WPPT); 1996. http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=12743.

  113. Wirsching JJ. Time is now: the need for federal resale royalty legislation in light of the European Union Directive. Southwest Univ Law Rev. 2005;35:431.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Xia J. A comparison of subject and institutional repositories in self-archiving practices. J Acad Librariansh. 2008;34(6):489–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.09.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Xia J, Sun L. Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: depositorship and full-text availability. Ser Rev. 2007;33(1):14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2006.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp, 128, Stadscampus Venusstraat 23, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Nikos Koutras

  2. Avenue Reine Astrid, 449, 1950, Kraainem, Belgium

    Nikos Koutras

Authors
  1. Nikos Koutras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikos Koutras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koutras, N. The Copyright Law Framework and Its Interaction with Open Access Repositories in Europe. Pub Res Q 34, 32–53 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-9565-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-9565-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation