Abstract
This chapter provides a theoretical and historical background about copyright and examines relevant key concepts such as information and knowledge, as well as the public interest. It first examines major theories regarding copyright and then reviews the historic developments at the national, regional and international levels. This is followed by an analysis of the relation between copyright protection and the circulation of information. Finally, the public interest concept is examined for it is the framework employed to determine the basis on which copyright limitations and exceptions have been granted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Lipszyc (2004), p. 525. The Manual was published in Spanish in 1993 and translated into English in 1999. Moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to remain anonymous, the right of integrity to stop a work from being distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified, and the right to control a work in association with a product, service, cause or institution. For additional details see Vaver (2000), pp. 158–168.
- 2.
- 3.
Ricketson and Creswell (2002), p. 10.
- 4.
- 5.
Ricketson maintains copyright protects authors and their assignees in their original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, and grants similar but limited protection for a range of other subject matters of a more ‘industrial’ character, such as sound recordings, films, television and sound broadcast, and the typographical arrangements of published editions of works. More recently, the rights of performers in their live performances have been given limited protection under copyright law. See Ricketson and Creswell (2002), p. 10. See also Davenport (1993), p. 57.
- 6.
It seems the higher the level of generality or abstraction an idea is, the less likely it is to be protected, see Plix Products v Frank M Winstone (1986) FSR 63 (High Ct of New Zealand) per Prichard J 92-94 (aff’d Plix Products v Frank M Winstone (1986) FSR 608 (Ct App of New Zealand)).
- 7.
Copyright as a type of intellectual property is described as ‘subsist’ rather than ‘exist’, see Cornish (2001), p. 17.
- 8.
Economists distinguish resources as rivalrous and non-rivalrous. A non-rivalrous resource cannot be exhausted; therefore, the issue is to maintain enough incentive for a producer to continue. For a rivalrous resource, first, sufficient incentive has to be provided and second, the consumption by a person should not deplete another’s fair share. See Hardin (1968), pp. 1243–1248, which describes a dilemma in which an individual acting independently carries out an act that greatly benefits him/herself but ultimately the act destroys a shared social resource even if it is not in anyone’s long term interest to do so. See also Landes and Posner (2003), p. 14.
- 9.
Marginal cost is the additional cost of producing one extra unit, see Samuelson and Nordhaus (2010), p. 9.
- 10.
Druey (2004) Information Cannot Be Owned.
- 11.
For example, in West Africa, Timbuktu was the most celebrated centre of learning that contributed to Islamic and world civilisation. By the fourteenth century, important books were written and copied in Timbuktu, establishing the city as the centre of a significant written tradition; see Rashid O, Legacy of Timbuktu. In al-Andalus, consisting of the parts of the Iberian Peninsula governed by Arab and African Muslims, between the eighth and the fifteenth centuries, many tribes, religions and races co-existed with each contributing to the intellectual prosperity of Andalusia. Literacy in Islamic Iberia was far more widespread than any other country of the West. See Previté-Orton (1952), pp. 616–643. In Europe, the Renaissance that began in Italy in the Late Middle Ages has had wide influence on literature, philosophy, art, politics, science, religion, and other aspects of intellectual enquiry. This is attributed to the rediscovery of the Roman and Greek classical works.
- 12.
Antons (2004), p. 31.
- 13.
- 14.
Some jurisdictions allow for the waiver of moral rights. In the United States, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 VI of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5128 recognises moral rights, but they only apply to works of visual art.
- 15.
Locke (1690), s 27.
- 16.
See Lunney (1996), p. 485 and Netanel (1996), pp. 285 and 292; at 292 the author argues that: ‘This free rider problem … would greatly impair author and publisher ability to recover their fixed production costs’; Landes and Posner (1989), p. 328. The authors here argue that when the market value of a creative work is reduced to the marginal cost of copying that work, the author and publisher will be unable to recover their costs in creating the work; Fisher (1988), pp. 1661 and 1700.
- 17.
Bentham (1986), pp. 49–52.
- 18.
- 19.
Rawls (1971), pp. 10–16.
- 20.
Drahos (1996), p. 177.
- 21.
For example, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4-11-1950) has affirmed the right to freedom of expression. This has implications for the defence of fair dealing for such acts as news reporting, criticism and review. See Art 10.
- 22.
Zemer (2006), p. 57.
- 23.
Locke (2002), ch V para 45.
- 24.
Locke (2002), ch V para 27.
- 25.
- 26.
Locke (2002), ch V para 37.
- 27.
Ibid.
- 28.
Locke (2002), ch V para 27.
- 29.
- 30.
For example, a bestseller novel was involved in a copyright infringement dispute; see Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2006] EWHC 719 (Ch). The author borrowed ideas and plots from two previous works employing the same theme, and was accused of plagiarism by the two authors. The Court held there was no ground for plagiarism by comparing the authors’ works with the language and the general theme of the work in question.
- 31.
- 32.
Hegel (1991), pp. 74–75 s 43.
- 33.
Hegel (1991), p. 77 s 46.
- 34.
- 35.
May (2000), p. 26.
- 36.
Fisher (2001), pp. 172–173.
- 37.
Fisher (2001), p. 173.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
See n16, Lunney (1996), p. 485 and Netanel (1996), p. 292 the author argues that:
This free rider problem … would greatly impair author and publisher ability to recover their fixed production costs.
Landes and Posner (1989), p. 328, the authors argue that when the market value of a creative work is reduced to the marginal cost of copying the work, the author and publisher will not be able to recover their costs of creating the work; Fisher III (1988), p. 1700.
- 42.
Reed J held in Mazer v Stein:
[T]o grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare.
347 US 201219. See also the testimony of Elizabeth Janeway at ‘Copyright Law Revision: Hearings before Subcommittee No 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives Eighty-Ninth Congress First Session on HR 4347, HR 5680, HR 6831, HR 6835’ (1965), reprinted in Grossman GS (1976), p. 100. For comments on the testimony, see n 31, Sterk (1995–1996) and Yen (1990), pp. 517–559; see n 31, Weinreb (1998), pp. 1211–1214.
- 43.
Davis (2008), pp. 29–30. Sweat of the brow doctrine requires a lower level of a work’s originality, see Feist Publications v Rural Tel Service 499 US 340 (1991), the Court of Appeals affirmed that telephone directories were copyrightable as a compilation.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
Netanel (1996), p. 292.
- 47.
Drahos (1996), pp. 171–175.
- 48.
- 49.
Sterk (1995–1996), p. 1207; Lunney (1996), pp. 485–495; Leval (1990), pp. 1109–1110 and Landes and Posner (1989), pp. 342–343, the authors argue that as the number of copyrighted works increases, the amount of valuable works in the public domain falls. Therefore, it is expensive for authors to acquire raw materials to create new works.
- 50.
- 51.
In Computer Associates Intern Inc. v Altai Inc. 982 F 2d 693 (2nd Cir 1992) the Court held that copyright law seeks to establish a delicate equilibrium. On the one hand, it affords protection for authors as an incentive to create, but on the other hand, it must limit the extent of that protection so as to avoid monopolistic stagnation. In applying a federal act to new types of cases, courts must always keep this symmetry in mind, see 693. See Ryan (2000), p. 655; Lunney (1996), p. 483. In Sony Corp v Universal City Studios 464 US 417 (1984), the Court held that defining limitations on copyright ‘involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society’s competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand’ at 429. Also see Copyright Law Revision (HR No 94-1476) reprinted in 1976 USSCA 5664, 5749 that discusses the incentives-access balance in determining a copyright’s appropriate term; see Wildlife Exp Corp v Carol Wright Sales Inc. 18 F 3d 502 (7th Cir 1994) 507, the Court held it necessary to balance authors’ rights to their original expression in order to allow others to build freely upon the ideas conveyed by a work.
- 52.
- 53.
Bentham (1996), p. 12 ch I para 3.
- 54.
Bentham (1996), p. 74 ch VII para 1.
- 55.
West (2003), p. 30.
- 56.
Postema (1986), p. 148.
- 57.
Stadler (2006), pp. 609–672. The US Supreme Court prioritises the goal of promoting intellectual works when interpreting copyright and patent statutes, see, for example, Fox Film Corporation v Doyal 286 US 123 (1932) 127–128; Kendall v Winsor 62 US 322 (1858) 327–328. A host of lower courts agreed and followed this approach, for example, Hustler Magazine Inc. v Moral Majority Inc. 796 F 2d 1148 (9th Cir 1986) 1151; Consumers Union of US v General Signal Corp 724 F 2d 1044 (2nd Cir 1983) 1048. For comments, see Leval (1990), p. 1108 and Kreiss (1995–1996), p. 2.
- 58.
Art 1 s 8 cl 8 of The Constitution of the United States of America 1787 empowers Congress:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
- 59.
- 60.
Landes and Posner (1989), pp. 325–364.
- 61.
Ibid.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
Posner (1979), p. 124. This article defines wealth as the value in dollars/dollar equivalents of everything in a society. The value of a pertinent item is measured by what people are willing to pay for it or, if someone owns the item, the minimum amount of money the person(s) will accept to give up the rights and ownership of the item.
- 65.
Ryan (2000), p. 649.
- 66.
As one commentator writes:
Wary of unreliable value judgments about art and incapable of predicting which of even the most successful authors’ future works will capture or recapture the public’s fancy, the mature copyright paradigm embraces all literary and artistic works simply by virtue of their being creations and leaves the assessment of merit entirely to the market.
See Reichman (1989), pp. 142–143.
- 67.
Lunney (1996), p. 489.
- 68.
Demsetz (1969), pp. 1–22.
- 69.
Netanel (1996), p. 286.
- 70.
Ryan (2000), p. 658.
- 71.
- 72.
Fisher (2001), pp. 174–176.
- 73.
- 74.
Fisher (1997), pp. 1212–1218.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
Coombe (1990), pp. 1853–1880.
- 78.
Elkin-Koren (1994), pp. 345–411.
- 79.
Madow (1993), pp. 125–242.
- 80.
Fisher (1988), p. 1659.
- 81.
- 82.
Adewopo (2001), p. 753.
- 83.
Yamin and Posey (1993), p. 143.
- 84.
Gana (1995), p. 132.
- 85.
Driver (1961), pp. 221 and 263.
- 86.
Gana (1995), p. 135.
- 87.
Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd. (1990) 130 ALR 649; [1995] European Intellectual Property Review D-61 Federal Court of Australia 13-12-1994 (reported in 1995 17(3) EIPR D-61). Indofurn was a company that imported carpets from Vietnam to Australia. The imprints on the carpets had been copied from the works of some local indigenous artists in Australia. The aboriginal artists sued Indofurn for infringing on their copyright by importing their Vietnamese carpets into Australia. The Court ruled that any inaccurate reproduction of their painting was an offense to the artists because it insulted their faith.
- 88.
Rahmatian (2007), pp. 220–223. Rahmatian argues that an unlimited individualistic property right is an oversimplification of the ‘western’ property concept and ‘non-western’ communal ownership is uncertain. A communal right to land such as the Gusii in Western Kenya is a far more sophisticated network of legal relations for each individual community. Von Lewinski indicates in an earlier work that collective rights are a part of indigenous culture. Nonetheless, this does not mean that every group member at the same level has equal status. See Stoll and von Hahn (2004), pp. 14–15.
- 89.
Macmillan (2007), p. 317.
- 90.
Ibid.
- 91.
- 92.
Mitsui (1993), pp. 141–142.
- 93.
Some scholars argue that the printing technology was so underdeveloped that imperial Chinese authorities did not have to engage in copyright protections, see Zheng and Pendleton (1991), p. 14. Adelstein and Peretz express a similar view in Adelstein and Peretz (1985), pp. 210–238. Another argument, an economic one, is that the market of printed materials was small in China because most of the Chinese were illiterate until the early twentieth century; therefore, there was no need for copyright protection. See Berman (1992), p. 201.
- 94.
See the Confucius Classical compilation of Lun Yu (Analects). On the pursuit of scholarship, Confucius said:
I am a raconteur and not a writer, a seeker and follower of ancient history and culture …
The Analects of Confucius (1999), p. 81 bk 7 ch 1.
- 95.
Fong (1962), pp. 95–140.
- 96.
Art 8 of WCT and Arts 10 & 14 of WPPT respectively; also s 1201 of Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) Pub L No 105-304, 112 Stat 2860 (28-10-1998). The right of access grants authors exclusive rights to authorise any communication with the public about their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by the authors. For example, authors can control user’s access to their works in interactive on-line systems. See LA Times v Free Republic 2000 US Dist LEXIS 5669 (CD Cal 05-04-2000), pp. 67–68; Chen (2012), p. 189; Ginsburg (2006), pp. 39–58; Olswang (1995), pp. 215–218 and ALAI 2001. However, some scholars argue the control of access is not a right but merely an author’s power. See Heide (2000–2001), pp. 469–477.
- 97.
Art 11 of WCT and Art 18 of WPPT.
- 98.
Art 10 of WCT and Art 6 of WPPT.
- 99.
Patrick (2004).
- 100.
The system of droit d’auteur (authors’ rights) predominant in the civil law tradition generally only affords protection to individual authors. This system leaves others such as performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations under the protection of related neighboring rights. In contrast, copyright grants protection for both individuals (natural persons) and corporate bodies (artificial persons).
- 101.
Historically and contemporarily, there has been, and there is a common basis for copyright in common law and in civil law. For example, see Davies (1995), pp. 964–966.
- 102.
An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
- 103.
Ch XIX of Statute of Queen Anne of 1710 (Ch 19). This was the first parliamentary English Copyright Act. It is important to note it was not the first English statute to deal with copyright but was the first to be adopted by Parliament rather than by royal decree and the first to be unannounced with censorship.
- 104.
Vitoria (1974), p. 20 para 16.
- 105.
- 106.
Books and sheet music were treated like printed books, see Bach v Longman 98 ER 1274, (1777) 2 Cowp 623, 1 Chit 26.
- 107.
Ulmer and Schricker XIV 13 para 2–25.
- 108.
The Europeans saw the Berne Convention as a compromise among Continental European nations, see Dietz (1978), p. 159.
- 109.
Bainbridge (2010), p. 35.
- 110.
The UK ratified the Berne Convention in1887, according to the WIPO record http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id (assessed 02-08-2017). However, it only abolished the requirement to register copyright with the Stationers Hall in the Copyright Act of 1911.
- 111.
Only works with issued copies were held to be published.
- 112.
Hansen (1996), pp. 579–593.
- 113.
Sell (2003), pp. 8–10 and McCullagh (2005).
- 114.
- 115.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.
- 116.
For more details, Davies (2002), p. 49.
- 117.
WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
- 118.
European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization on certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
- 119.
The term American copyright law means federal law. The laws of several states reflect a variety of natural law influences, including John Locke’s natural rights in property, see Patterson (1968), pp. 183–192.
- 120.
- 121.
Art 1 s 8 cl 8 of the US Constitution.
- 122.
2nd Sess Ch XV, Copyright Act of 1790 (1 Statues At Large 124) as amended in 1802, 1870, 1909 and 1976.
- 123.
Eldred v Ashcroft 537 US 186 (2003) 245-248; Harper & Row Publishers v Nation Enterprises 471 US 539 (1985) 546; United States v Paramount Pictures 334 US 131 (1948) 158. See also Feist Publications v Rural Tel Service 499 US 340 (1991) 349. Here the Court held that the primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labour of authors, but ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts’. Twentieth Century Music Corporation v Aiken 422 US 151 (1975), p. 156, in which the Court held a creative work was to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately promote broad public availability of literature, music, and other forms of art. For comments, see Kreiss (1995–1996), p. 7 and Goldstein (1985–1986), p. 1123.
- 124.
They were revised or rewritten in 1831, 1870, 1909 and 1976.
- 125.
Ginsburg (2001). See Teleprompter Corp v Columbia Broadcasting Sys Inc. 415 US 394 (1974) 411–414 (cable transmissions); Fortnightly Corp v United Artists Television 392 US 390 (1968) 399–402 (cable transmissions); White-Smith Music Pub Co v Apollo Co 209 US 1 (1908) 17–18 (piano rolls).
- 126.
The 1802 Amendment to the Copyright Act of 1790, enacted by the Seventh Congress on 29 April 1802.
- 127.
Copyright Act of 1831 (First General Revision of US Copyright Law), enacted by the Twenty-first Congress on 3 February 1831.
- 128.
Copyright Act of 1870 (Second General Revision of US Copyright Law), enacted by the Forty-first Congress on 8 July 1870.
- 129.
There are other notable expansions of copyright. For example, common law provides an author perpetual copyright no matter whether the person’s work is published or not, while statutory copyright law provides that the publication date is the day copyright commences. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 abolished the dual system of copyright and shifted the inceptive day of copyright to the day a works had a tangible form. The substantive examination and registration of copyright also experienced a decline after the Copyright Act of 1909.
- 130.
S 1 of Copyright Act of 1790.
- 131.
Ch 1 s 24 of Copyright Act of 1909.
- 132.
S 302 of Copyright Act of 1976.
- 133.
The subject matter expanded from books, charts and maps to a variety of objects that were literary works and musical works which included any accompanying words as well as dramatic works with any accompanying music. Also included were pantomimes and choreographic works, pictorial, graphic, sculpture works, motion picture and other audiovisual works, and sound recordings. Compare s 3 of the Copyright Act of 1790 and see Goldstein (2005), pp. 1:49–1:50.
- 134.
Copyright Law Revision (HR No 94-1476) to the 94th Congress 2nd Session (1976), p. 51.
- 135.
Anonymous ‘Righting Copyright’ Time Magazine (1976), p. 92.
- 136.
For example, see Cardtoons v Major League Baseball Players Ass’n 868 F Supp 1266 (1994) 1271, the Court opined:
[T]he factors contained in Section 107 are merely by way of example, and are not necessarily an exhaustive enumeration. This means that factor other than those enumerated may prove to have a bearing upon the determination of fair use.
See also Beebe (2008).
- 137.
Litman (1986–1987), pp. 895–896.
- 138.
Lessig (2001), p. 6.
- 139.
Lessig (2001), p. 6.
- 140.
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1988 Pub L No 105-298, 112 Stat 2827 (27-10-1998). Also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
- 141.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1988 Pub L No 105-304, 112 Stat 2860 (28-10-1998).
- 142.
The legitimacy of CTEA was challenged in Eldred v Ashcroft 537 US 186 (2003). The plaintiff Eldred argued that the extended copyright protection term prevented the free flow of information and violated the US Constitution. The passage of CTEA only occurred because of the extensive lobbying from media giants and recording and motion picture corporations such as the Disney Company.
- 143.
- 144.
This section focuses on the regional copyright laws of the EC and EU. The EC was created under the Treaty of Rome on 25 March 1957. The Treaty hoped to build a European Economic Community (EEC) based on a common market. The EEC expanded from six members to nine members in 1973. The Treaty of Maastricht established the EU in 1993. Ten more countries from the former Soviet-bloc countries joined the EU in 2004, and another two countries joined in 2007.
- 145.
Dietz (1978), p. 153.
- 146.
Ibid.
- 147.
France and Belgium did not have this exception.
- 148.
Belgium and Luxembourg did not have this exception.
- 149.
The revised text includes limitations and exceptions for the use of quotations, the use of works for teaching, and private use, see Dietz Copyright Law in the European Community 159.
- 150.
Id 158–159.
- 151.
Id 160.
- 152.
The EC did not have a ‘pan-EC’ copyright law after the establishment of the European Economic Area (EEA). The copyright laws remained national. However, all EC Member States were signatories to both the Berne and the Universal Copyright Convention. By virtue of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (OJ No L 1, 3.1.1994), all Contracting Parties were obliged to accede to the Paris Revision of the Berne Convention before 1 January 1995 and to ensure their national laws complied with its substantive provisions before 1 January 1994. For more details see Brown and Robert (1994), p. 39.
- 153.
Brown and Robert (1994), p. 44.
- 154.
Speech delivered by Reinbothe at the ALAI Conference in Amsterdam 4–8 June 1996, see Reinbothe (1997), p. 37.
- 155.
Id 38.
- 156.
Commission of the European Communities Copyright in the Knowledge Economy Green Paper of the Commission of the European Communities Brussels COM (2008) 466/3.
- 157.
Art 5(1) of the Information Society Directive.
- 158.
Arts 5(2)-(4).
- 159.
May (2003), pp. 1–5.
- 160.
Stewart (1989), p. 26.
- 161.
- 162.
For example, it defines the subject matter of copyright and the term of protection. It also limits authors’ exclusive rights, see Fitzpatrick (2003), p. 215.
- 163.
Universal Copyright Convention of 1952 as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971.
- 164.
Norman (2004).
- 165.
Mort (1997), p. 180.
- 166.
The Uruguay Round consisted of a series of negotiations between 1986 and 1993 that led to the revision of GATT. One hundred and twenty-five countries signed the revision on 15April 1994.
- 167.
Art 3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
- 168.
Mort (1997), p. 177.
- 169.
Art 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement. For details, see Smith (1996), p. 561.
- 170.
Gervais (2002), p. 936.
- 171.
Fitzpatrick (2003), p. 215.
- 172.
JAL Sterling and Cook (2015), pp. 587–589.
- 173.
JAL Sterling and Cook (2015), p. 589.
- 174.
Ramello (2005), pp. 120–141.
- 175.
- 176.
Drahos (1996), pp. 171–175.
- 177.
Id 171–175.
- 178.
Druey (2004), p. 12.
- 179.
Id 2.
- 180.
Id 15.
- 181.
The freedom of expression is found in Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- 182.
Netanel (1996), p. 283.
- 183.
Ramello (2005), p. 125.
- 184.
- 185.
For example, see Cohen (2003), pp. 988–992.
- 186.
Hilty (2007), p. 331.
- 187.
Lessig (2001), p. 23.
- 188.
Copyleft is a practice that uses copyright law to remove restrictions on distribution of copies and modified versions of a work and requires the same freedom be preserved in modified works. Copyleft is based on an author’s right to impose copyright restrictions with a copyright licence on users. It is implemented by a licence defining specific copyright terms applied to such works as software, documents, music and art. A widely used copyleft licence is the General Public License.
- 189.
Wikipedia is an internationally web-based cooperative free-content encyclopaedia that allows free access and edition of its content. It is carried out by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. The word Wikipedia is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopaedia, where ‘wiki’ is a term originally from a web called wiki wiki and derived from the Hawaiian wiki wiki which means quick. It is a multilingual web of 200 languages and editions.
- 190.
Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation. It offers different types of licences to enable copyright holders to grant a number of rights to the public while retaining other rights. The project provides several free licences that copyright holders can use when they release their works on the web. They also provide RDF/XML metadata to makes the automatic process and the locating of licensed works easier.
- 191.
Hardin (1968), pp. 1243–1248.
- 192.
Lemley (1996–1997), pp. 989–1084.
- 193.
Davies (2002), pp. 28–50.
- 194.
S 171(3) of CDPA 1988.
- 195.
Beloff v Pressdram Ltd. [1973] 1 ALL ER 241; Lion Laboratories Ltd. v Evans [1984] 2 ALL ER 417. For comments, see Dworkin (1998), pp. 142–143.
- 196.
Davies (2002), pp. 155–159, describes the evolution of French copyright law that was accompanied by debates about public interest and the legislative response to the debates. Also see 202–221 on the same theme involving German copyright law.
- 197.
Bainbridge (2010), pp. 200–202.
- 198.
- 199.
Pound (1959), pp. 327–334.
- 200.
- 201.
Dhavan (1986), p. 20.
- 202.
A general analysis on intergenerational public goods can be found in Sandler (2001), pp. 161–167.
- 203.
Freeman (2001), pp. 659–672.
- 204.
Pound (1954), pp. 42–47.
- 205.
Only in this way is a law not just a law on paper but also is a law in action. One example is China’s disjointed copyright legislation and enforcement that is criticised for merely paying lip service to its international obligations, see Hansen (1996), p. 579.
- 206.
Antieau (1977), p. 852.
- 207.
Less developed countries have gone through three stages: (1) the colonial stage when European power was dominate; (2) after the Second World War when colonised nations endeavoured to regain political independence and sovereignty and; (3) the post-colonial stage when less developed countries tried to establish independent nationhood and national development. See Stover (1984), p. 43.
- 208.
Stover (1984), p. 42.
- 209.
- 210.
May (2003), p. 3.
- 211.
For example, Initial Services Ltd. v Putterill [1968] 1 QB 396 (CA) 405G-406B Lord Denning MR held that it was in the public interest to disclose information in a confidential status. For more details, see Bowers et al. (2007), pp. 256–315.
- 212.
An example is the freedom of information laws in the United Kingdom.
- 213.
- 214.
334 US 131 (1948).
- 215.
Harper & Row Publishers v Nation Enterprises 471 US 539 (1985), p. 546.
- 216.
[1984] 1 FC 1065.
- 217.
Id 27.
- 218.
(1980) 147 CLR 39.
- 219.
Beloff v Pressdram Ltd. [1973] 1 ALL ER 241.
- 220.
(1980) 147 CLR 39 56-57.
- 221.
Preamble of the WCT 1996.
- 222.
The preamble of the WPPT 1996 states that it attempts to maintain a balance particularly with ‘education, research and access to information’.
- 223.
S 225(3) of New Zealand Copyright Act of 1994 Public Act 1994 No 143, which is identical to s 171(3) of CDPA 1988.
- 224.
Art 4(2) of Copyright Law 1990, as revised in 2001.
- 225.
Constitution of the People’s Republic of China of 1982 amended in 1988, 1993, 1999 and 2004.
- 226.
Ch 2 Art 47 of Constitution 1982.
References
Adelstein R, Peretz S (1985) The competition of technologies in markets for ideas: copyright and fair use in evolutionary perspective. Int Rev Law Econ 5:209
Adewopo A (2001) The global intellectual property system and sub-Saharan Africa. A prognostic reflection. U Toledo Law Rev 33:749
ALAI 2001 Congress “Adjuncts and Alternatives to Copyright: Programs and Presentation” (20-09-2001) AIAI 2001 USA, Available at http://www.alai-usa.org/2001_conference/1_program_en.htm. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Alford W (1995) To steal a book is an elegant offense: intellectual property law in Chinese civilization. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Anonymous “Righting Copyright” Time Magazine (01-11-1976) 92
Antieau CJ (1977) The jurisprudence of interests as a method of constitutional adjudication. Case West Reserve Law Rev 27(4):823, 852
Antons C (2004) Legal culture and its impact on regional harmonisation. In: Antons C, Blakeney M, Heath C (eds) Intellectual property harmonisation within ASEAN and APEC. Kluwer Law International, Netherlands
Bainbridge D (2010) Intellectual property, 8th edn. Pearson Education Ltd., Edingurgh
Beebe B (2008) An empirical study of US copyright fair use opinions, 1978–2005. Univ Pa Law Rev 549; Report of Initial Findings for Boalt Intellectual Property Scholarship Seminar 19-10-2006 http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/students/Beebe.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Bentham J (1986) Theory of legislation, 2nd edn. NM Tripathi, Maharashtra
Bentham J (1996) In: Burns JH, Hart HLA (eds) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 12 ch I para 3
Berman D (1992) Words like colored glass: the role of the press in Taiwan’s democratization process. Westview Press, Boulder
Braun N (2003) The interface between the protection of technological measures and the exercise of exceptions to copyright and related rights: comparing the situation in the United States and the European Community. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 25(11):496
Browes RA (2000) Copyright: court of appeal considers fair dealing defence and rejects common law defence of public interest. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 22(6):289
Brown J, Robert G (1994) Intellectual property rights in the European economic area. In: Bright C (ed) Business law in the European economic area. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Burkitt D (2001) Copyrighting culture — the history and cultural specificity of the western model of copyright. Intellect Prop Q:146
Burrell R (2000) Defending the public interest. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 22(9):394
Chen PH (2012) Rethinking the ‘Access’ element in copyright infringement cases about popular music. NTUT J Intell Prop Law Manage 1(2):189
Cohen TB (2003) Anti-circumvention: has Technology’s child turned against its mother? Vanderbilt J Int Law 36:961
Coombe RJ (1990) Objects of property and subjects of politics: intellectual property laws and democratic dialogue. Tex Law Rev 69:1853
Copyright Law Revision (HR No 94-1476) reprinted in 1976 USSCA 5664, 5749 that discusses the incentives-access balance in determining a copyright’s appropriate term
Copyright Law Revision (HR No 94-1476) to the 94th Congress 2nd Session (1976)
Cornish GP (2001) Copyright: interpreting the law for libraries, archives and information services. Library Ass’n Publishing, London
Cotter TF (1997) Pragmatism, economics, and the Droit moral. N C Law Rev 76:1
Cottier TF (1991) The prospects for intellectual property in GATT. Common Mark Law Rev 28(2):383
Davenport N (1993) United Kingdom copyright & design protection: a brief history. Mason Publishing, Emsworth
Davies G (1995) The convergence of copyright and authors’ rights — reality or chimera? Int Rev Intell Prop Compet Law 26:964
Davies G (2002) Copyright and the public interest, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Davis J (2008) Intellectual property law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Demsetz H (1969) Information and efficiency: another viewpoint. J Law Econ 12(1):1
Dhavan R (1986) Whose law? Whose interest? In: Cooper J, Dhavan R (eds) Public interest law. Blackwell, Oxford
Dietz A (1978) Copyright law in the European community: a comparative investigation of National Copyright Legislation, with special reference to the provisions of the treaty establishing the European economic community. Sijthoff & Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn
Drahos P (1996) A philosophy of intellectual property. Dartmouth Pub Co., Dartmouth
Driver HE (1961) The Indians of North America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Druey JN (07-04-2004) Information cannot be owned: there is more of a difference than many think, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 96; Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication No 2004-05, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=528663. Assessed 27 Aug 2017
Dusollier S (2005) Technology as an imperative for regulating copyright: from the public exploitation to the private use of the work. Eur Intellect Prop Rev:201
Dworkin G (1998) Judicial control of copyright on public policy grounds. In: Kabel JJC, Mom JHM (eds) Intellectual property and information law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
E Durkheim On Morality and Society (1973) Selected writings. University of Chicago, Chicago
Elizabeth Janeway at “Copyright Law Revision: Hearings before Subcommittee No 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives Eighty-Ninth Congress First Session on HR 4347, HR 5680, HR 6831, HR 6835” (1965), reprinted in Grossman GS (1976) (ed) Omnibus copyright revision legislative history, vol 5. Buffalo, Hein
Elkin-Koren N (1994) Copyright law and social dialogue on the information superhighway: the case against copyright liability of bulletin board operators. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 13:345
Epstein RA (2008) The property rights movement and intellectual property. Regulation 30(4):58
Evans GE (1994) Intellectual property as a trade issue: the making of the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. World Compet Law Econ Rev 18(2):137
Fisher WW III (1988) Reconstructing the fair use doctrine. Harv Law Rev 101:1659
Fisher WW (1997) Property and contract on the internet. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 73:1203
Fisher WW (2001) Theories of intellectual property. In: Munzer S (ed) New essays in the legal and political theory of property. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fisher WW, Horwitz MJ, Reed TA (eds) (1993) American legal realism. Oxford University Press, New York
Fitzpatrick SA (2003) Prospects of further copyright harmonisation. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 25(5):215
Fong W (1962) Problems of forgeries in Chinese painting. Part one. Artibus Asiae 25(2/3):95
Freeman MDA (2001) Lloyd’s introduction to jurisprudence, 7th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Gana RL (1995) Has creativity died in the third world? Some implications of the internationalization of intellectual property. Denver J Int Law Policy 24:109
Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. Basic Books Inc, New York
Gervais DJ (2002) The internationalization of intellectual property: new challenges from the very old and the very new. Fordham Intell Prop Media Entertain Law J 12(4):929
Ginsburg JC (1981–1982) Sabotaging and reconstructing history: a comment on the scope of copyright protection in works of history after Hoehling v Universal City studios. J Copyr Soc USA 29:647
Ginsburg JC (2001) Copyright and control over new technologies of dissemination. Columbia Law Rev 1613:1614–1615
Ginsburg J (2006) From having copies to experiencing works: the development of an access right in US copyright law. In: Hansen H (ed) US intellectual property law and policy. Elgar, Cheltenham
Goldstein P (1985–1986) Infringement of copyright in computer programs. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 47:1119
Goldstein P (1994) Copyright’s highway: from Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox. Hill and Wang, New York
Goldstein P (2005) Goldstein on copyright, 3rd edn. Aspen, New York
Gordon WJ (1989–1990) An inquiry into the merits of copyright: the challenges of consistency, consent, and encouragement theory. Stanford Law Rev 41:1343
Gordon WJ (1992–1993) A property right in self-expression: equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. Yale Law J 102:1533
Gordon WJ, Postbrief S (1998) On commodifying intangibles. Yale J Law Humanit 10:135
Gutterman A, Brown R (eds) (1997) Intellectual property law of East Asia. Sweet & Maxwell, Hong Kong
Hansen HC (1996) International copyright: an unorthodox analysis. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 29:579
Hardin G (1968) Tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3589):1243
Hegel GWF (1991) Elements of the philosophy of right, wood AW ed, trans: Nisbet HB. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Heide T (2000–2001) Copyright in the EU and United States: what ‘Access Right’? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 48:469
Heins M, Beckles R (2005) Will fair use survive?: free expression in the age of copyright control. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, New York
Hettinger EC (Winter 1989) Justifying intellectual property. Philos Public Aff 18(1):31
Hilty R (2007) Copyright law and scientific research. In: Torresmans PL (ed) Copyright law: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Hughes J (1988–1989) The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law J 77:287
JAL Sterling, Cook T (2015) Sterling on world copyright law, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
John Bowers QC, Fodder M, Lewis J, Mitchell J (2007) Whistleblowing: law and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Johnson DR, Post D (1995–1996) Law and borders — the rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Rev 48:1367
Karjala DS (1997) The term of copyright. In: Gasaway LN (ed) Growing pains: adapting copyright for libraries, education, and society. Fred B Rothman & Co., Littleton
Kreiss RA (1995–1996) Accessibility and commercialization in copyright theory. Univ Calif Los Angel Law Rev 43:1
Laddie H, Prescott P, Vitoria M, Speck A, Lane L (2000) The modern law of copyright and designs, vol 1, 3rd edn. Butterworths, London
Landes WM, Posner RA (1989) An economic analysis of copyright law. J Leg Stud 18(2):325
Landes WM, Posner RA (2003) The economic structure of intellectual property law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Lemley MA (1996–1997) The economics of improvement in intellectual property law. Tex Law Rev 75:989
Lemley MA (2015) Faith-based intellectual property. UCLA Law Rev 62:1328
Lessig L (2001) The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world. Random House, New York
Lessig L (2004) Free culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin Press, New York
Leval PN (March 1990) Toward a fair use standard. Harv Law Rev 103(5):1105
Lipszyc D (2004) New topics in copyright and neighbouring rights. In: UNESCO’s manual on copyright and neighbouring rights, vol 2. UNESCO, Paris
Litman JD (1986–1987) Copyright, compromise, and legislative history. Cornell Law Rev 72:857
Litman JD (Fall 1990) The public domain. Emory Law J 39(4):965
Locke J (1690) The second treatise of civil government. In: Two treatises of government. Awnsham Churchill, London
Locke J (2002) In: Crawford T (ed) The second treatise of government and a letter concerning toleration. Dover Publications, New York
Lunney GS Jr (1996) Reexamining Copyright’s incentive-access paradigm. Vanderbilt Law Rev 49(3):483
Macmillan F (1998) Copyright and culture: a perspective on corporate power. Media Arts Law Rev 10:10
Macmillan F (2007) Copyright, the World Trade Organization, and cultural self-determination. In: Macmillan F (ed) New directions in copyright law, vol 6. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
MacQueen HL, Waelde C, Laurie GT (2008) Contemporary intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Madow M (1993) Private ownership of public image: popular culture and publicity rights. Calif Law Rev 81(1):125
May C (2000) A global political economy of intellectual property rights: the new enclosure? Routledge Chapman & Hall, London
May C (2003) Why IPRs are a global political issue. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 25(1):1
McCullagh D (01-08-2005) Copyright Lobbyists Strike Again at CNET, available at http://news.cnet.com/Copyright-lobbyists-strike-again/2010-1071_3-5811025.html (accessed 27-08-2017)
Merges RP (1993) Are you making fun of me?: notes on market failure and the parody defence in copyright. AIPLA Q J 21:305
Michelman F (1988) Law’s republic. Yale Law J 97(8):1493
Mitsui T (1993) Copyright and music in Japan: a forced grafting and its consequences. In: Firth S (ed) Music and copyright. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, p 125
Moore AD (2012) A Lockean theory of intellectual property revisited. San Diego Law Rev 49:1069
Mort SA (1997) The WTO, WIPO & the internet: confounding the borders of copyright and neighboring rights. Fordham Intell Prop Media Entertain Law J 8(1):173
Mustafa F (1997) Copyright law: a comparative study. Qazi, New Delhi
Netanel NW (1996) Copyright and a democratic civil society. Yale Law J 106(2):283
Netanel NW (1998) Asserting copyright’s democratic principles in the global arena. Vanderbilt Law Rev 51(2):217
Netanel N (2013) First amendment constraints on copyright after Golan v. Holder UCLA Law Rev 60(5):1082
Nimmer ND (2000) A riff on fair use: in the digital millennium copyright act. Univ Pa Law Rev 148(3):673
Olswang S (1995) Access right: an evolutionary path for copyright into the digital era? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 17:215
Patrick P (November 2004) Why DRM Should be Caused for Concern: An Economic and Legal Analysis of the Effect of Digital Technology on the Music Industry. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School Research Publication No 2004-09, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=618065. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Patterson LR (1968) Copyright in historical perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, Tenn
Posner RA (1979) Utilitarianism, economics, and legal theory. J Leg Stud 8:103
Postema GJ (1986) Bentham and the common law tradition. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Pound R (1954) An introduction to the philosophy of law. Yale Univeristy Press, New Haven, pp 42–47
Pound R (1959) Jurisprudence, vol I & III. West, St Paul
Previté-Orton CW (1952) The shorter Cambridge medieval history, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Radin MJ (1993) Reinterpreting property. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Rahmatian A (2007) Universalist norms for a globalised diversity: on the protection of traditional cultural expressions. In: Macmillan F (ed) New directions in copyright law, vol 6. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Ramello GB (2005) Private appropriability and sharing of knowledge: convergence or contraction? The opposite tragedy of the creative commons. In: Takeyama LN, Gordon WJ, Towse R (eds) Developments in the economics of copyright: research and analysis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Rashid O, Legacy of Timbuktu: Wonders of the Written Word Exhibit Storyline Walkthrough International Museum of Muslim Cultures, avialable at http://archive.is/Eq7q0. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Reichman JH (1989) Design protection and the new technologies: the United States experience in a transnational perspective. Univ Baltim Law Rev 19:6
Reinbothe J (1997) The European Union’s approach to copyright regarding the global information infrastructure. In: Dellebeke M (ed) Copyright in cyberspace: copyright and the global information infrastructure. Otto Cramwinckel, Amsterdam
Ricketson S, Creswell C (2002) The law of intellectual property: copyright, designs & confidential information, 2nd edn. Thomson/Law Book Co., Sydney
Ryan M (2000) Cyberspace as public space: a public trust paradigm for copyright in a digital world. Oreg Law Rev 79:647
SA Norman Copyright: A/V and Electronic Media an International Dimension (2004) conference paper of 60th IFLA General Conference, August 21-27 1994 http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-nors.htm (accessed 27-08-2017)
Samuelson P (1999) Intellectual property and the digital economy: why the anti-circumvention regulations need to be revised. Berkeley Technol Law J 14:519
Samuelson P (2003–2004) Should economics play a role in copyright law and policy. Univ Ott Law Technol J 1:1
Samuelson P, Nordhaus WD (2010) Economics, 19th edn. McGraw-Hill, New Delhi
Sandler T (2001) Economic concepts for the social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sell S (2003) Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Shamans JB (1996) Software and spleens: law and the construction of the information society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Shao K (2005) An alien of copyright? A reconsideration of the Chinese historical episodes of copyright. Intellect Prop Q 4:400
Sims A (2006) The public interest defence in copyright law: myth or reality. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 28(6):335
Smith EH (1996) Worldwide copyright protection under the TRIPs agreement. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 29:559
Stadler SK (2006) Forging a truly utilitarian copyright. Iowa Law Rev 91:609
Sterk SE (1995–1996) Rhetoric and reality in copyright law. Mich Law Rev 94:1197–1249
Stewart S (1989) International copyright and neighboring rights, 2nd edn. Butterworths, London
Stoll PT, von Hahn A (2004) Part II: indigenous peoples, indigenous knowledge and indigenous resources in international law. In: von Lewinski S (ed) Indigenous heritage and intellectual property: genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. Kluwer International Law, The Hague, p 5
Stover W (1984) Information technology in the third World. Westview Press, Boulder, p 41
Suzor N (2013) Access, progress, and fairness: rethinking exclusivity in copyright. Vanderbilt J Entertain Technol Law 15(2):297
The Analects of Confucius: A New-millennium Translation (D Li tran, Bethesda: Premier Publishing, 1999)
Torremans P (2005) Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ulmer E, Schricker G International encyclopedia of comparative law, vol XIV. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden. XIV 13 para 2-25
United Nations Educational (1996) Scientific and cultural organization, report of the world commission on culture and development: our creative diversity, 2nd edn. UNESCO, Paris
Vaver D (2000) Copyright law. Irwin Law, Toronto
Vinje TC (2000) Should we begin digging copyright’s grave? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 22(12):551
Vitoria M (1974) Patents and Registered Designs. In: Lord Hailsman of St Marylebone (ed) Halsbury’s laws of England, vol 9(2), 4th edn
von Ihering R Law as a Means to an End (translation of Der Zweck im Recht volume I (1877) & volume II (1883) (Husik trans, Boston: Boston Book, 1913)
Waelde HL, MacQueen C (2004) From entertainment to education: the scope of copyright? Intellect Prop Q 3:259
Waldron J (1988) The right to private property. Oxford University Press, New York
Weiner R (2000) Creativity and beyond: cultures, values, and change. State University of NY Press, Albany
Weinreb LL (1998) Copyright for functional expression. Harv Law Rev 111(5):1149
West EG (2003) Property rights in the history of economic thought: from Locke to J S Mill. In: Anderson, McChesney (eds) Property rights: cooperation, conflict and law. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Yamin F, Posey D (1993) Indigenous peoples, biotechnology and intellectual property rights. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 2(2):141
Yen AC (1990) Restoring the natural law: copyright as labor and possession. Ohio State Law J 51:517
Yonover GJ (1995) The “dissing” of da Vinci: the imaginary case of Leonardo v Duchamp: moral rights, parody, and fair use. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev 29:935
Zemer L (2006) On the value of copyright theory. Intellect Prop Q 55
Zheng CS, Pendleton MD (1991) Copyright law in China. CCH International, North Ryde
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wang, J. (2018). An Overview of Copyright: A Balance of Interests. In: Conceptualizing Copyright Exceptions in China and South Africa. China-EU Law Series, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71831-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71831-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71830-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71831-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)