File #2715: "2019_Book_ACopyrightGambit.pdf"
Testo
1|Foreword|7
1|Acknowledgments|9
1|Contents|11
1|Chapter 1: Introduction|16
2|1.1 The Digitisation of Rare Documents|16
2|1.2 The Problem: An Overview|22
2|1.3 Do Restrictions Result in Exclusivity?|25
2|1.4 The Debate: An Overview|29
2|1.5 Will Exclusive Rights Lead to Enclosure?|33
2|1.6 Effects of Exclusivity on the Use and Access of Rare Materials|38
2|1.7 Need for a Comprehensive Policy|40
2|1.8 Summary|41
1|Chapter 2: Objectives and Methodology|43
2|2.1 Objectives of the Study|43
2|2.2 Scope and Definitions|44
3|2.2.1 Focus on Textual Content|44
3|2.2.2 Definitions|46
2|2.3 Methodology|47
3|2.3.1 Empirical Survey|47
3|2.3.2 Legal Analysis|49
2|2.4 Research Questions|49
2|2.5 The Title: `A Copyright Gambit´|51
1|Chapter 3: An Overview of Business Models Currently in Use|52
2|3.1 A Range of Business Models|52
2|3.2 A Tale of Two Markets|63
3|3.2.1 Strategy 1: Directly Cater to the User Market|64
3|3.2.2 Strategy 2: Cater to the Digitisation Market|68
2|3.3 Motivation to Cater to the Digitisation Market|69
2|3.4 Summary and Conclusions|71
1|Chapter 4: Is There a Need to Preserve Exclusivity Over Digitised Versions?|72
2|4.1 Rare Documents in the EU|72
2|4.2 Is There a Need for Mass-Digitisation?|72
2|4.3 Is There a Need to Channel Private Sector (for-Profit) Investment?|74
2|4.4 Is There a Need for Control?|77
3|4.4.1 Create Investment Incentives|78
3|4.4.2 Ensure Sustainability of the Digitisation Process|78
3|4.4.3 Maintain Relevance of Memory Institutions|79
2|4.5 Does the Maintenance of Control Require Exclusive Rights?|81
2|4.6 Price Discrimination as an Alternative Model|86
2|4.7 Absence of Exclusivity Could Lead to Market Failure|87
2|4.8 The Nature and Scope of the Exclusivity That Is Required|92
2|4.9 Who Should Be the Owner of the Exclusive Right?|94
3|4.9.1 Preservation of the Interests of the Public|95
3|4.9.2 Single Ownership to Prevent Fragmentation of Rights|95
2|4.10 Summary and Conclusions|98
1|Chapter 5: A Conceptual Basis for Justifying the Grant of an Exclusive Right|99
2|5.1 The Objective of the Proposed Exclusive Right|99
2|5.2 An Overview of the Principle Conceptual Foundations for Copyright|100
2|5.3 Applying the Incentive Theory to Digitisation|107
2|5.4 The Social Planning Theory as a Normative Influence|111
3|5.4.1 Transformative Use|113
3|5.4.2 Use for Educational Purposes and Use in Public Communication and Debate|114
3|5.4.3 Reproduction for Personal Non-commercial Purposes|114
3|5.4.4 Price Discrimination|115
3|5.4.5 Duration of the Proposed Exclusive Right|115
3|5.4.6 Preventing Contractual Provisions and DRM from Being Used to Bypass Exceptions and Limitations|116
2|5.5 Summary and Conclusions|117
1|Chapter 6: Adequacy and Suitability of Existing Protection Mechanisms|118
2|6.1 Commonly Used Mechanisms|118
3|6.1.1 Copyright Law|118
3|6.1.2 Contract Law|122
3|6.1.3 Digital-Rights-Management (DRM) Systems|122
2|6.2 Potential Mechanisms|124
3|6.2.1 Trade Mark Law|124
3|6.2.2 Database Protection|124
3|6.2.3 Equitable Remuneration (Fair Compensation)|127
2|6.3 Summary and Conclusions|128
1|Chapter 7: Can a Digitised Version Obtain Copyright Protection Within the EU?|131
2|7.1 An Overview of the Digitisation Process|132
2|7.2 Can a Digitised Version Be Protected Under Copyright Law Within the EU Law Framework?|138
2|7.3 The `Author´s Own Intellectual Creation´ Standard as a Harmonised Standard of Originality|142
3|7.3.1 CJEU Case Law|142
3|7.3.2 Analysis of the CJEU Case Law and Its Application to Digitised Versions|147
2|7.4 Protection Within the Legal Frameworks of the UK, Germany, and France|150
3|7.4.1 UK|150
4|7.4.1.1 The Traditional Copyright Law Framework|150
5|7.4.1.1.1 Originality of a Reproductive Work|154
5|7.4.1.1.2 Protection of Photographic Reproductions|162
4|7.4.1.2 Following CJEU Harmonisation|169
3|7.4.2 Germany|174
4|7.4.2.1 The Traditional Copyright Law Framework|174
5|7.4.2.1.1 A Digitised Version as a Lichtbildwerk Under Section 2(1)(5) of the German Copyright Act|175
5|7.4.2.1.2 Related Rights Protection of a Digitised Version as a Lichtbild Under Section 72 of the German Copyright Act|181
4|7.4.2.2 Following CJEU Harmonisation|189
3|7.4.3 France|192
4|7.4.3.1 The Traditional Copyright Law Framework|192
5|7.4.3.1.1 Objectification of the Classical Standard of Originality|194
5|7.4.3.1.2 Know-How|197
5|7.4.3.1.3 Originality of Reproductive Content|198
4|7.4.3.2 Following CJEU Harmonisation|200
2|7.5 Summary and Conclusions|202
1|Chapter 8: Why Are Related Rights the Best Mechanism?|204
2|8.1 What Are Related Rights?|204
3|8.1.1 International Landscape|206
3|8.1.2 Related Rights Within the EU Law Framework|208
3|8.1.3 Salient Features of the Concept of Related Rights|211
2|8.2 Why a Related Rights Regime?|213
3|8.2.1 Provide for Legislation to Replace the Current Regime of Private Ordering|213
3|8.2.2 Provide for a Period of Protection That Is Limited in Time|216
3|8.2.3 Achieving a Balance of Interests Through Exceptions and Limitations|217
3|8.2.4 Preference for a Related Right Over a sui generis Regime|218
2|8.3 Examples of Subject-Matter Protected Under Related Rights|219
3|8.3.1 Related Right for the Protection of Non-creative Photographs Under German Law|220
3|8.3.2 Related Right for Posthumous Publications Under EU Law|220
3|8.3.3 Protection for Typographical Arrangements Under UK Law|221
2|8.4 Determination of Ownership of the Related Right|222
2|8.5 How Would the PSI Directive Affect the Operation of the Related Right?|223
3|8.5.1 Impact of the PSI Directive on the Introduction of an Exclusive Related Right Over Digitised Versions|224
3|8.5.2 Impact of the PSI Directive on Exclusive Licences for Digitisation and the Commercial Exploitation of Digitised Versions|225
3|8.5.3 Impact of PSI Directive upon the Maintenance of Confidentiality of the License for Digitisation|229
3|8.5.4 Impact of PSI Directive on Ability to Make Re-Use of Digitised Versions Subject to Payment|231
2|8.6 Summary and Conclusions|232
1|Chapter 9: The Proposed Model|233
2|9.1 Core Elements|233
2|9.2 Central European Database|242
2|9.3 Scope of Related Right|252
2|9.4 Administrative Guidelines|269
3|9.4.1 Tender Procedure|270
3|9.4.2 Guidelines for Standardisation and Interoperability|271
2|9.5 Implications for Users|272
2|9.6 Summary and Conclusions|276
1|Chapter 10: Conclusion|277
2|10.1 Question 1: `Is There a Need to Preserve Exclusivity Over Digitised Versions of Rare Documents?´|277
2|10.2 Question 2: `Are Current Legal and Non-legal Mechanisms Sufficient Either Alone or in Combination (with or Without Modifi...|278
2|10.3 Question 3: `What Legal/Non-legal Mechanisms Could Be Introduced Within the EU, in Order to Ensure the Preservation of an...|279
1|Annex|281
2|Empirical Survey: Objectives, Design and Methodology|281
3|I. Objectives|281
3|II. Design|281
4|a. Main Sample: Memory Institutions|281
4|b. Data Collection|284
3|III. Methodology|284
4|a. Secondary Sample: Stakeholders|285
1|Bibliography|286
2|Books and Articles|286
2|Reports and Submissions|293
2|News Articles and Blog Articles|294
2|Legal Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias|295
2|Other Documents and Resources|295
2|Cases: Austria|296
2|Cases: Belgium|296
2|Cases: Canada|296
2|Cases: Court of Justice of the European Union|296
2|Cases: France|297
2|Cases: Germany|297
2|Cases: Israel|298
2|Cases: United Kingdom|298
2|Cases: United States|298
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: European Union|299
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: France|300
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: Germany|300
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: Ireland|300
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: United Kingdom|300
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: United States|300
2|Treaties and Conventions|300
1|Acknowledgments|9
1|Contents|11
1|Chapter 1: Introduction|16
2|1.1 The Digitisation of Rare Documents|16
2|1.2 The Problem: An Overview|22
2|1.3 Do Restrictions Result in Exclusivity?|25
2|1.4 The Debate: An Overview|29
2|1.5 Will Exclusive Rights Lead to Enclosure?|33
2|1.6 Effects of Exclusivity on the Use and Access of Rare Materials|38
2|1.7 Need for a Comprehensive Policy|40
2|1.8 Summary|41
1|Chapter 2: Objectives and Methodology|43
2|2.1 Objectives of the Study|43
2|2.2 Scope and Definitions|44
3|2.2.1 Focus on Textual Content|44
3|2.2.2 Definitions|46
2|2.3 Methodology|47
3|2.3.1 Empirical Survey|47
3|2.3.2 Legal Analysis|49
2|2.4 Research Questions|49
2|2.5 The Title: `A Copyright Gambit´|51
1|Chapter 3: An Overview of Business Models Currently in Use|52
2|3.1 A Range of Business Models|52
2|3.2 A Tale of Two Markets|63
3|3.2.1 Strategy 1: Directly Cater to the User Market|64
3|3.2.2 Strategy 2: Cater to the Digitisation Market|68
2|3.3 Motivation to Cater to the Digitisation Market|69
2|3.4 Summary and Conclusions|71
1|Chapter 4: Is There a Need to Preserve Exclusivity Over Digitised Versions?|72
2|4.1 Rare Documents in the EU|72
2|4.2 Is There a Need for Mass-Digitisation?|72
2|4.3 Is There a Need to Channel Private Sector (for-Profit) Investment?|74
2|4.4 Is There a Need for Control?|77
3|4.4.1 Create Investment Incentives|78
3|4.4.2 Ensure Sustainability of the Digitisation Process|78
3|4.4.3 Maintain Relevance of Memory Institutions|79
2|4.5 Does the Maintenance of Control Require Exclusive Rights?|81
2|4.6 Price Discrimination as an Alternative Model|86
2|4.7 Absence of Exclusivity Could Lead to Market Failure|87
2|4.8 The Nature and Scope of the Exclusivity That Is Required|92
2|4.9 Who Should Be the Owner of the Exclusive Right?|94
3|4.9.1 Preservation of the Interests of the Public|95
3|4.9.2 Single Ownership to Prevent Fragmentation of Rights|95
2|4.10 Summary and Conclusions|98
1|Chapter 5: A Conceptual Basis for Justifying the Grant of an Exclusive Right|99
2|5.1 The Objective of the Proposed Exclusive Right|99
2|5.2 An Overview of the Principle Conceptual Foundations for Copyright|100
2|5.3 Applying the Incentive Theory to Digitisation|107
2|5.4 The Social Planning Theory as a Normative Influence|111
3|5.4.1 Transformative Use|113
3|5.4.2 Use for Educational Purposes and Use in Public Communication and Debate|114
3|5.4.3 Reproduction for Personal Non-commercial Purposes|114
3|5.4.4 Price Discrimination|115
3|5.4.5 Duration of the Proposed Exclusive Right|115
3|5.4.6 Preventing Contractual Provisions and DRM from Being Used to Bypass Exceptions and Limitations|116
2|5.5 Summary and Conclusions|117
1|Chapter 6: Adequacy and Suitability of Existing Protection Mechanisms|118
2|6.1 Commonly Used Mechanisms|118
3|6.1.1 Copyright Law|118
3|6.1.2 Contract Law|122
3|6.1.3 Digital-Rights-Management (DRM) Systems|122
2|6.2 Potential Mechanisms|124
3|6.2.1 Trade Mark Law|124
3|6.2.2 Database Protection|124
3|6.2.3 Equitable Remuneration (Fair Compensation)|127
2|6.3 Summary and Conclusions|128
1|Chapter 7: Can a Digitised Version Obtain Copyright Protection Within the EU?|131
2|7.1 An Overview of the Digitisation Process|132
2|7.2 Can a Digitised Version Be Protected Under Copyright Law Within the EU Law Framework?|138
2|7.3 The `Author´s Own Intellectual Creation´ Standard as a Harmonised Standard of Originality|142
3|7.3.1 CJEU Case Law|142
3|7.3.2 Analysis of the CJEU Case Law and Its Application to Digitised Versions|147
2|7.4 Protection Within the Legal Frameworks of the UK, Germany, and France|150
3|7.4.1 UK|150
4|7.4.1.1 The Traditional Copyright Law Framework|150
5|7.4.1.1.1 Originality of a Reproductive Work|154
5|7.4.1.1.2 Protection of Photographic Reproductions|162
4|7.4.1.2 Following CJEU Harmonisation|169
3|7.4.2 Germany|174
4|7.4.2.1 The Traditional Copyright Law Framework|174
5|7.4.2.1.1 A Digitised Version as a Lichtbildwerk Under Section 2(1)(5) of the German Copyright Act|175
5|7.4.2.1.2 Related Rights Protection of a Digitised Version as a Lichtbild Under Section 72 of the German Copyright Act|181
4|7.4.2.2 Following CJEU Harmonisation|189
3|7.4.3 France|192
4|7.4.3.1 The Traditional Copyright Law Framework|192
5|7.4.3.1.1 Objectification of the Classical Standard of Originality|194
5|7.4.3.1.2 Know-How|197
5|7.4.3.1.3 Originality of Reproductive Content|198
4|7.4.3.2 Following CJEU Harmonisation|200
2|7.5 Summary and Conclusions|202
1|Chapter 8: Why Are Related Rights the Best Mechanism?|204
2|8.1 What Are Related Rights?|204
3|8.1.1 International Landscape|206
3|8.1.2 Related Rights Within the EU Law Framework|208
3|8.1.3 Salient Features of the Concept of Related Rights|211
2|8.2 Why a Related Rights Regime?|213
3|8.2.1 Provide for Legislation to Replace the Current Regime of Private Ordering|213
3|8.2.2 Provide for a Period of Protection That Is Limited in Time|216
3|8.2.3 Achieving a Balance of Interests Through Exceptions and Limitations|217
3|8.2.4 Preference for a Related Right Over a sui generis Regime|218
2|8.3 Examples of Subject-Matter Protected Under Related Rights|219
3|8.3.1 Related Right for the Protection of Non-creative Photographs Under German Law|220
3|8.3.2 Related Right for Posthumous Publications Under EU Law|220
3|8.3.3 Protection for Typographical Arrangements Under UK Law|221
2|8.4 Determination of Ownership of the Related Right|222
2|8.5 How Would the PSI Directive Affect the Operation of the Related Right?|223
3|8.5.1 Impact of the PSI Directive on the Introduction of an Exclusive Related Right Over Digitised Versions|224
3|8.5.2 Impact of the PSI Directive on Exclusive Licences for Digitisation and the Commercial Exploitation of Digitised Versions|225
3|8.5.3 Impact of PSI Directive upon the Maintenance of Confidentiality of the License for Digitisation|229
3|8.5.4 Impact of PSI Directive on Ability to Make Re-Use of Digitised Versions Subject to Payment|231
2|8.6 Summary and Conclusions|232
1|Chapter 9: The Proposed Model|233
2|9.1 Core Elements|233
2|9.2 Central European Database|242
2|9.3 Scope of Related Right|252
2|9.4 Administrative Guidelines|269
3|9.4.1 Tender Procedure|270
3|9.4.2 Guidelines for Standardisation and Interoperability|271
2|9.5 Implications for Users|272
2|9.6 Summary and Conclusions|276
1|Chapter 10: Conclusion|277
2|10.1 Question 1: `Is There a Need to Preserve Exclusivity Over Digitised Versions of Rare Documents?´|277
2|10.2 Question 2: `Are Current Legal and Non-legal Mechanisms Sufficient Either Alone or in Combination (with or Without Modifi...|278
2|10.3 Question 3: `What Legal/Non-legal Mechanisms Could Be Introduced Within the EU, in Order to Ensure the Preservation of an...|279
1|Annex|281
2|Empirical Survey: Objectives, Design and Methodology|281
3|I. Objectives|281
3|II. Design|281
4|a. Main Sample: Memory Institutions|281
4|b. Data Collection|284
3|III. Methodology|284
4|a. Secondary Sample: Stakeholders|285
1|Bibliography|286
2|Books and Articles|286
2|Reports and Submissions|293
2|News Articles and Blog Articles|294
2|Legal Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias|295
2|Other Documents and Resources|295
2|Cases: Austria|296
2|Cases: Belgium|296
2|Cases: Canada|296
2|Cases: Court of Justice of the European Union|296
2|Cases: France|297
2|Cases: Germany|297
2|Cases: Israel|298
2|Cases: United Kingdom|298
2|Cases: United States|298
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: European Union|299
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: France|300
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: Germany|300
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: Ireland|300
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: United Kingdom|300
2|Legislation and Pre-enactment Material: United States|300
2|Treaties and Conventions|300