Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Openness Through the Lenses of the Three-Step-Test: International Perspectives on Copyright Protection

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

This paper is focused on openness movement and the principles that said movement declared regarding the use of works set under copyright protection to enable for open access works. The three-step-test legal edifice is deeply rooted in international copyright law; its meaning and application is of vital importance for any consideration of amending copyright law with the aim to include provisions for openness. Unless a provision for openness passes the three-step-test there can be no sustainable amendment of copyright law in favour of openness.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See the Australian Copyright Act of 1968 as amended.

References

  1. Armstrong C. Access to knowledge in Africa: the role of copyright. IDRC; 2010.

  2. OECD. Giving knowledge for free: the emergence of open educational resources. 2007. http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=822&lang=ca.

  3. Rossini, Carolina Almeida Antunes. Green-­paper: the state and challenges of OER in Brazil: from readers to writers? SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1549922. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2010. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1549922.

  4. Centivany A, Glushko B. Open educational resources and the University: Law, technology, and magical thinking. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1680562. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2010. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1680562.

  5. Das AK. Open access to knowledge and information: scholarly literature and digital library initiatives—the South Asian Scenario. New Delhi: UNESCO; 2008. http://crossasia-repository.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/3441/1/158585e.pdf.

  6. Demaio A, Dorch B, Herch F. Open access: everyone has the right to knowledge. The Conversation. 2012. http://theconversation.com/open-access-everyone-has-the-right-to-knowledge-10342.

  7. Breakey H. Natural intellectual property rights and the public domain. Mod Law Rev. 2010;73(2):208–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00791.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Birkinshaw P. Freedom of information and openness: fundamental human rights commentary. Adm Law Rev. 2006;58:177–218.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Suber P. 2015. Timeline of the open access movement. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm.

  10. Feki MA, Kawsar F, Boussard M, Trappeniers L. The internet of things: the next technological revolution. Computer. 2013;26:24–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. de Laat PB. Governance of open source software: state of the art. J Manag Gov. 2007;11(2):165–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-007-9022-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown, Patrick O., Diane Cabell, Aravinda Chakravarti, Barbara Cohen, Tony Delamothe, Michael Eisen, Les Grivell, et al. 2003. “Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing.” https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725199.

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

  14. Gruss P. Open access to science and culture. Sci. 2004;303(5656):311–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Martín-Martín A, Costas R, van Leeuwen TN, López-Cózar ED. Unbundling open access dimensions: a conceptual discussion to reduce terminology inconsistencies. 2018. arXiv:1806.05029 [Cs]. 10.17605/OSF.IO/7B4AJ.

  16. Bollier D. Viral spiral: how the commoners built a digital republic of their own. New Press; 2008

  17. Suber P. Open access. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Meurer MJ. Copyright law and price discrimination. Cardozo Law Rev. 2001;23(1):55–148.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ruse-Khan HG. The international law relation between TRIPs and subsequent TRIPs-plus free trade agreements: towards safeguarding TRIPs flexibilities. J Intellect Prop Law. 2010;18:325.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fitzgerald, B, Shi SX, Foong C, Pappalardo K. Country of origin and internet publication: applying the Berne convention in the digital age. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2485479. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2011. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2485479.

  21. Dharmatilake B. Reformulating the ‘fair Dealing’ defence in copyright law to accommodate transformative musical works and maximise creativity in Australia. Int J Technol Policy Law. 2015;2(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPL.2015.067958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Xalabarder R. Copyright exceptions for teaching purposes in Europe. IN3 working paper series. 2004. http://www.artnodes.com/index.php/in3-working-paper-series/article/view/n4-xalabarder.

  23. Goldfarb B, Henrekson M. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Res Policy. 2003;32(4):639–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00034-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ricketson S, Ginsburg J. International copyright and neighbouring rights: the Berne convention and beyond two volume set, 2nd edn. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.

  25. Kallinikou D. License contracts, free software and creative commons in Greece. In: Free and open source softward (FOSS) and other alternative license models: a comparative analysis. Ius Comparatum—Global Studies in Comparative Law. Germany: Springer; 2016, pp 227–234

  26. Aplin T, Bently LAF. Displacing the dominance of the three-step test: the role of global, mandatory fair use. 2018. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3119056.

  27. Ginsburg JC. Toward supranational copyright law? The WTO panel decision and the ‘Three-Step Test’ for copyright exceptions. SSRN scholarly Paper ID 253867. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2001. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.253867.

  28. Gervais DJ. Collective management of copyright and related rights. Kluwer Law International; 2010

  29. Dinwoodie G. The WIPO copyright treaty: a transition to the future of international copyright lawmaking law, technology and the arts symposium: the WIPO copyright treaties: 10 years later. Case West Res Law Rev. 2006;57(4):751–66.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ficsor M. Collective management of copyright and related rights. WIPO; 2002.

  31. Senftleben M, Kerk M, Buiten M, Heine K. From books to content platforms—new business models in the Dutch publishing sector. SSRN scholarly paper ID 2904116. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2904116.

  32. Ginsburg JC. The U.S. experience with mandatory copyright formalities: a love/hate relationship. Columbia J Law Arts. 2009;33:311–48.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Angelopoulos C, Quintais JP. Fixing copyright reform. J Intellect Prop, Inf Technol Electron Commer Law. 2019;10(2):147–72.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Grodzinsky FS, Bottis MC. Private Use as Fair Use: Is It Fair? ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 2007;37(2):11–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1327325.1327326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Spinello RA, Bottis M. A Defense of intellectual property rights. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009. https://books.google.gr/books?hl=el&lr=&id=DVRoh3htiKgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=a+defence+of+intellectual+property+rights&ots=MMNEReJtIu&sig=pylNlZAjOQ07iCU1SL9IwZzdah8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=a%20defence%20of%20intellectual%20property%20rights&f=false.

  36. WIPO. World intellectual property indicators 2016. Geneva: Economics & Statistics; 2016.

  37. Peukert A. An EU related right for press publishers concerning digital uses. a legal analysis. Research paper, Faculty of Law, Goethe University; 2016. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2888040.

  38. Bottis M. the protection of private life and the european legislation with regard to personal data: thoughts on the protection of private life in the USA. In: Honorary volume, Stathopoulos. Greece: Sakkoulas; 2009, pp 809–823.

  39. 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 

  40. Goldstein P. International copyright: principles, law, and practice. Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Banting K, Kymlicka W. Multiculturalism and the Welfare State : recognition and redistribution in contemporary democracies: recognition and redistribution in contemporary democracies. Oxford University Press; 2006.

  42. Quintais J. Rethinking normal exploitation: enabling online limitations in EU copyright law. SSRN scholarly paper ID 3106729. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3106729.

  43. Hatschek K. Making money with music licensing—part I: copyrights and revenue. Disc Makers Blog; 2013. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/com-facarticles/56.

  44. Dusollier S. The master’s toos v. the master’s house: creative commons v. copyright. (Print symposium: contract options for individual artists). Columbia J Law Arts. 2006;29(3):271–93.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Geiger C, Gervais D, Senftleben M. The three-step test revisited: how to use the test’s flexibility in national copyright law. Am Univer Int Law Rev. 2013;29(3):581–626.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gervais DJ. (Re)structuring copyright: a comprehensive path to international copyright reform. Com. Cheltenam: Edward Elgar Pub; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Arnold R, Rosati E. Are national courts the addressees of the InfoSoc three-step test? J Intellect Prop Law Pract. 2015;10(10):741–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Senftleben M. Copyright, limitations, and the three-step test: an analysis of the three-step test in international and EC copyright law. Kluwer Law International B.V.; 2004.

  49. Leistner M, Metzger A. The EU copyright package: a way out of the dilemma in two stages. IIC—Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law. 2017;48(4):381–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0586-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Archives, Library Science and Museology, Faculty of Information Science & Informatics, National Library of Greece, Ionian University, Athens, Greece

    Marinos Papadopoulos

  2. School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia

    Nikos Koutras

Authors
  1. Marinos Papadopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikos Koutras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikos Koutras.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papadopoulos, M., Koutras, N. Openness Through the Lenses of the Three-Step-Test: International Perspectives on Copyright Protection. Pub Res Q 37, 626–641 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09840-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09840-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation