Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Published in:

Read chapter Read first chapter

2023 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

An Australian-Based View on Reconstructing Copyright Licensing Laws

Authors : Robert Cunningham, Marinos Papadopoulos, Nikos Koutras

Published in: Comparative Approaches in Law and Policy

Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore

Abstract

In the new digital landscape, contemporary issues such as the need to promote online creativity, support digital live streaming, and develop effective computer hardware should be addressed by the copyright licensing scheme. The purpose of the paper is to consider the effectiveness of the copyright licensing scheme in Part IVA of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (‘the Act’) and analyse how it can be strengthened to support creativity and digital exchange. The first paper part discusses about justifications for open access, its desirability as a publishing model and lessons drawn from European institutions where efficient implementation of open access is applicable. Hence, such lessons should be considered in a future inquiry from the Australian Law Reform Commission and become part of The Future of Law Reform inquiry (2020). The second paper part considers the institutional perspective by examining specific Australian institutions and argues that ‘reconstruction’ of copyright licencing laws, will further access opportunities, and enhance scientific communication, in Australia. All in all, reconsideration of the final report on Intellectual Property Arrangements Inquiry issued from the Australian Productivity Commission (2016) potentially can lead to gradual integration of an open access provision in ‘the Act’, which will enhance copyright licencing laws.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Entering into Food Processing Market in India—Methodology of Obtaining the Food Registration and Food Licenses

next chapter Regulating Strategic Communications Investigation: The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (UK) as an Exemplar for India

Bacon [1, 2].

Black [3].

Stromquist [4].

Allen [5].

Keenan [6].

Foucault [7].

Hall [8].

Ginsburg [9].

Ginsburg [10].

Liu [11].

Houle [12].

Antezana [13].

Gonzalez-Suarez [14] and Geiger and Izyumenko [15].

In particular, these European directives are as follows:

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society; Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version); Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified version); Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version); Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights; and Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market.

Cullen and Chawner [16].

Harnad [17].

Jantz and Wilson [18].

Wittmann et al. [19].

Suber et al. [20].

Carbonell and Stephanidis [21].

The wider and overarching objective of this program is to develop and improve the quality of life. It was launched in 1985 and accomplished in 2013. Currently, EUREKA has thirty-four full members: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the European Union. In addition, three countries (Albania, Bulgaria and Ukraine) participate in EUREKA projects through a network of National Information Points (NIPs). Morocco gained Associate Country status in 2003. Compared to the pre-competitive projects supported under the EU Framework Programs for research and technology development, EUREKA projects concentrate on the development of marketable products and services. Projects are generated on a ‘bottom-up’ basis, with the participants deciding the objectives of the project, who is involved, who runs the project, the contribution of each of the partners, and how the results are used. EUREKA does not provide direct financial support for projects—this is the responsibility of the EUREKA members.

The following steps were required to implement a research project funded by the EUREKA program:

EUREKA was a decentralized cooperation structure with National Project Coordinators (NPCs) located in each of the member countries. To receive the EUREKA label, a project proposal must (a) demonstrate innovation and be aimed at developing a new product, process or service with market potential; (b) involve partners from at least two EUREKA member countries; (c) aim to develop a significant technological advance in its sector and a marketable product, process or service for civilian use; and (d) the participants must be technically and managerially qualified to conduct the project with access to necessary financial resources. Interested organizations can join already existing projects or submit new ones.

The steps to be followed when establishing a new EUREKA project included (a) drafting a project proposal and identification of partners: the National Project Coordinator assists with the completion of a ‘project suggestion form’ and helps to locate potential partners in other EUREKA countries; (b) developing and proposing the project: once a project consortium is established, the scope, objectives and structure of the project should be defined. An application for EUREKA status must then be made by filling in what is known as the ‘18-point sheet’. The NPCs can help with this; (c) approval of the proposal by the NPC: completed project proposals are evaluated by the different NPCs of each of the partners participating in the consortium and a decision is taken on whether to grant the EUREKA label. This takes on average 2–3 months; (d) circulation of the project proposal throughout the NPC network: during a 45-day circulation period, the project is sent to all NPCs, who may bring it to the attention of other potential participants (although the decision to expand the consortium rests with the original members). During this period, many of the involved governments will begin taking the ‘EUREKA nature’ of the project into account when considering the possibility of public funding. All project proposals have been officially endorsed by the EUREKA High Level Group (HLG). See also Van Rossum and Cabo [22] and Bayona-Sáez and García-Marco [23].

Candela et al. [24].

Castelli et al. [25].

Jeffery [26].

Swan and Carr [27].

Smith and Dickson [28].

Cochrane [29].

Beall [30].

Rabesandratana [31].

Ghalichi et al. [32].

Stone [33].

Stagg et al. [34].

Bossu and Stagg [35].

Australian Government [36].

Kirkman [37].

Bossu [38].

Australian Research Council is a Commonwealth entity within the Australian government. By embracing an open access policy as part of one of its core functions establishes justifications of promotion of open access practice on behalf of the Australian government.

Angelopoulos [39].

Griffin [40].

Shrayberg and Volkova [41].

Wilkinson [42].

Geist [43].

Costantino [44].

Authors Guild v. Google 721 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2015) (2015).

Department of Communications and the Arts (n 76).

Ibid., 4.

Department of Communication and the Arts, Routable on orphan works (Consultation paper, May 2018) 3; Department of Communication and the Arts, Roundtable on uses of copyright by the government (Consultation Paper, April 2018) 2.

FAIR Steering Group is a group whose membership comprises of organisations with an interest in open access, such as the ARC, NHMRC, CAUL and Universities Australia. Chaired by the CAUL, the group are dedicated to working towards establishing open access in Australia, primarily by supporting and discussing the FAIR principles, see Open Access Australasia, ‘Making the case for a national approach for Open Research in Australia’ (Online document, 31 January 2021) 2 <https://oaaustralasia.org/2021/01/31/making-the-case-for-a-national-approach-for-open-research-in-australia/>; FAIR, ‘FAIR Steering Group’ (Web page, 2021) <https://www.fair-access.net.au/about/steering-group>.

The Australian Council of Learned Academies is a forum whose members inform national policy, by providing expert advice, whilst developing ‘innovative solutions’ to issues both within Australia and globally. See Australian Council of Learned Academies, ‘About us’ (Web page, 2021) <https://acola.org/about-us/>; Open Access Australasia (n 242) 2.

Productivity Commission, Intellectual Property Arrangements, 38 (2015).

Stewart et al. [45].

PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, Intellectual Property Arrangements, 766 138 (2016), https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/intellectual-property/report/intellectual-property.pdf (last visited Jun 11, 2021).

‘Copyright access reforms’, Australian Government, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (Web Page, 13 August 2020) <https://www.communications.gov.au/departmental-news/copyright-access-reforms>.

Stevens [46].

Ibid., 90.

Makkar [47].

PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, supra note 53 at 38.

Singh [48].

Jaszi [49].

SMITH AND DICKSON, supra note 27.

Roy et al. [50].

Shin and Soydemir [51].

Frankel and Gervais [52].

Bergstrom [53] and Tenopir et al. [54].

Hopkins [55].

Boyd and Crawford [56].

Turner [57] and Lyon [58].

Carroll [59].

Carroll [60].

Harnad [61].

Cramond [62].

Alvarez-Meaza et al. [63].

Bodó et al. [64].

Zeilinger [65].

Kirby [66].

FRANCIS BACON, FRANCIS BACON: THE MAJOR WORKS (Oxford University Press, 2008).

FRANCIS BACON, THE WORKS OF FRANCIS BACON 244–245 (James Spedding ed., Robert Leslie Ellis ed., Douglas Denon Heath ed, Minerva Classics, 2013).

JEREMY BLACK, THE POWER OF KNOWLEDGE: HOW INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY MADE THE MODERN WORLD 98 (Yale University Press, 2015).

NELLY P STROMQUIST, EDUCATION IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD: THE CONNECTIVITY OF ECONOMIC POWER, TECHNOLOGY, AND KNOWLEDGE 86–87 (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002).

Amy Allen, Power/Knowledge/Resistance: Foucault and epistemic injustice, in THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF EPISTEMIC INJUSTICE, 17 (2017).

Thomas Keenan, The “Paradox” of Knowledge and Power: Foucault on the Bias, in FOUCAULT AND LAW, 47 (2010).

MICHEL FOUCAULT, THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 133–135 (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2012).

HALL, STUART, DISCOURSE THEORY AND PRACTICE: A READER 81 (Margaret Wetherell ed., Stephanie Taylor ed., Simeon J. Yates ed., SAGE Publications Inc., 2001).

Jane C Ginsburg, The U.S. Experience with Mandatory Copyright Formalities: A Love/Hate Relationship 33 COLUM. J. L. & ARTS 311, 322–323 (2009).

10.

Jane C Ginsburg, The Right to Claim Authorship in U.S. Copyright and Trademarks Law, 41 HOUST. LAW REV. 263, 288–294 (2004).

11.

Joseph P Liu, Owning Digital Copies: Copyright Law and the Incidents of Copy Ownership, 42 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REV. 1245, 1296–1325 (2000).

12.

Jeffrey R Houle, Digital Audio Sampling, Copyright Law and the American Music Industry: Piracy or Just a Bad Rap, 37 LOY. L. REV. 879, 881–882 (1991).

13.

Monica E Antezana, The European Union Internet Copyright Directive as Even More Than It Envisions: Toward a Supraeu Harmonization of Copyright Policy and Theory, 26 INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 415, 419–420 (2003).

14.

Marta Gonzalez-Suarez, Restitution of Cultural Heritage in the European Directives: Towards an Enlargement of the Concept of Cultural Goods, ART ANTIQUITY AND LAW 1 (2018).

15.

Christophe Geiger & Elena Izyumenko, The Constitutionalization of Intellectual Property Law in the EU and the Funke Medien, Pelham and Spiegel Online Decisions of the CJEU: Progress, but Still Some Way to Go!, 51 IIC 282, 293 (2020).

16.

Rowena Cullen and Brenda Chawner, Institutional Repositories, Open Access, and Scholarly Communication: A Study of Conflicting Paradigms, 37 J. ACAD. LIBRARIANSH. 460, 461 (2011).

17.

Stevan Harnad, Open Access: A Green Light for Archiving, 487 Nature 302, 303 (2012).

18.

Ronald C Jantz and Myoung C Wilson, Institutional Repositories: Faculty Deposits, Marketing, and the Reform of Scholarly Communication, 34 J. ACAD. LIBRARIANSH. 186, 188–190 (2008).

19.

Tibor Wittmann et al, New European Initiatives in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Budapest Declaration, 30 DIG. DIS. 320, 323 (2012).

20.

Peter Suber et al, Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, HARVARD LIBRARY OFFICE FOR SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION (Jun. 20, 2003), http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725199.

21.

Noëlle Carbonell and Constantine Stephanidis, ‘European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics Workshop Adjunct Proceedings’ in Noelle Carbonell and Constantine Stephanidis (eds), 7th ERCIM Workshop ‘User Interfaces for All’ Special Theme: ‘Universal Access’ (2002) < https://hal.inria.fr>.

22.

Wouter Van Rossum and Pepin G Cabo, ‘The Contribution of Research Institutes in EUREKA Projects’ (1995) 10(7–8) International Journal of Technology Management 853.

23.

Cristina Bayona-Sáez and Teresa García-Marco, ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of the Eureka Program’ (2010) 39(10) Research Policy 1375.

24.

Candela et al, The DELOS Digital Library Reference Model. Foundations for Digital Libraries (2007) < http://www.delos.info>.

25.

Castelli et al, ‘DILIGENT: A Digital Library Infrastructure for Supporting Joint Research’ in International Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technology (IEEE Computer Society, 2005) 56.

26.

Keith Jeffery, ‘Open Access: An Introduction’ (2006) < https://www.researchgate.net>.

27.

Alma Swan & Leslie Carr, Institutions, Their Repositories and the Web, 34 SERIALS REVIEW 31, 33 (2008).

28.

KEVIN L. SMITH & KATHERINE A. DICKSON, OPEN ACCESS AND THE FUTURE OF SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION: POLICY AND INFRASTRUCTURE 206 (Reprint edition ed. 2016).

29.

Tom Cochrane, Mandates: An Australian example at the Queensland University of Technology, in CERN WORKSHOP IN INNOVATIONS IN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION (OAI6) 1, 6 (2009), https://indico.cern.ch/event/48321/contributions/1992197/ (last visited Aug 6, 2021).

30.

Jeffrey Beall, The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access, 11 TRIPLEC: COMMUNICATION, CAPITALISM & CRITIQUE. OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL FOR A GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE INFORMATION SOCIETY 589, 593 (2013).

31.

Tania Rabesandratana, The world debates open-access mandates, 363 SCIENCE 11, 11 (2019).

32.

Leila Ghalichi et al., Research centers’ ranking and resource management, 26 RAZI JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 18, 19 (2019).

33.

CATHY STONE, Opportunity through online learning: improving student access, participation and success in higher education, 85 14 (2017), https://apo.org.au/node/94591 (last visited Jun 14, 2021).

34.

Adrian Stagg et al., Open Educational Practices in Australia: A First-phase National Audit of Higher Education, 19 IRRODL 171, 184 (2018).

35.

Carina Bossu & Adrian Stagg, The potential role of Open Educational Practice policy in transforming Australian higher education, 10 OPEN PRAXIS 145, 148 (2018).

36.

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, National Health and Medical Research Council - Open Access Policy, 13 5 (2018), https://web.archive.org/web/20180513211220/https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/research/nhmrc_open_access_policy_15_january_2018_v2.pdf (last visited May 25, 2021).

37.

Noreen Suzanne Kirkman, A Study of Open Access Publishing by NHMRC Grant Recipients, 2018, https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/77026/Kirkman%20N%202018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (last visited Jun 14, 2021).

38.

Carina Bossu, Open Educational Practices in Australia, in OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES: POLICY, COSTS, TRANSFORMATION 13, 15 (2016).

39.

CHRISTINA ANGELOPOULOS, On Online Platforms and the Commission’s New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2017), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2947800 (last visited May 22, 2020).

40.

James Griffin, ‘Copyright Evolution: Creation, Regulation, and the Decline of Substantively Rational Copyright Law (United Kingdom)’ [2013] (3) Intellectual Property Quarterly 234, 239.

41.

Ya. L. Shrayberg & K. Yu. Volkova, Features of Copyright Transformation in the Information Environment in the Age of Digitalization, 48 SCI. TECH. INF. PROC. 30, 32 (2021).

42.

Sarah Wilkinson, Justifying the Unjustifiable: Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (“Access Copyright”) v. York University, 31 187, 208 (2019).

43.

MICHAEL GEIST, THE COPYRIGHT PENTALOGY: HOW THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SHOOK THE FOUNDATIONS OF CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAW 213 (2013), https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/33268 (last visited Dec 21, 2021).

44.

Melanie Costantino, Fairly Used: Why Google’s Book Project Should Prevail under the Fair Use Defense Note, 17 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 235, 247 (2006).

45.

ANDREW STEWART ET AL., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN AUSTRALIA (2018), https://research.bond.edu.au/en/publications/intellectual-property-in-australia (last visited Jun 23, 2021).

46.

Jessica Stevens, The secondary sale, copyright conundrum: Why we need a secondary market for digital content, 26 AUSTRALIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL 179, 184 (2016).

47.

Jap-Nanak Makkar, A Trademark on Irony: J. M. Coetzee’s Formalism, Digital Copyright, Literary Proprietorship, 59 CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE 204, 221 (2018).

48.

Chawla Dalmeet Singh, Australian institutions lag behind on open access adoption (2021), https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/australian-institutions-lag-behind-on-open-access-adoption (last visited Feb 18, 2022).

49.

Peter Jaszi, Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of “Authorship”, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND HISTORY (2012).

50.

Bijan Kumar Roy, Subal Chandra Biswas & Mukhopadhyay Parthasarathi, Status of Open Access Institutional Digital Repositories in Agricultural Sciences: A Case Study of Asia, 1329 LIBRARY PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE (E-JOURNAL) (2016), http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3615&context=libphilprac (last visited Dec 10, 2017).

51.

Sangheon Shin & Gökçe Soydemir, Exchange-traded funds, persistence in tracking errors and information dissemination, 20 JOURNAL OF MULTINATIONAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 214 (2010).

52.

SUSY FRANKEL & DANIEL GERVAIS, THE EVOLUTION AND EQUILIBRIUM OF COPYRIGHT IN THE DIGITAL AGE (2014).

53.

Carl Bergstrom, ‘Measuring the Value and Prestige of Scholarly Journals’ (2007) 68(5) 314.

54.

Carol Tenopir et al, ‘Electronic Journals and Changes in Scholarly Article Seeking and Reading Patterns’ (2009) 61(1) Aslib Proceedings 5.

55.

James Hopkins, ‘The Role of Learned Societies in Knowledge Exchange and Dissemination: The Case of the Regional Studies Association, 1965–2005’ (2011) 40(2) History of Education 255.

56.

Danah Boyd and Kate Crawford, ‘Critical Questions for Big Data’ (2012) 15(5) Information, Communication & Society 662.

57.

Fred Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

58.

David Lyon, The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society—Computers and Social Control in Context (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).

59.

Michael W Carroll, ‘Movement for Open Access on Law, The’ (2006) 10 Lewis & Clark Law Review 741.

60.

Michael W Carroll, ‘Creative Commons and the Openness of Open Access’ (2013) 368(9) New England Journal of Medicine 789.

61.

Stevan Harnad, ‘The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition’ in The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age (L’Harmattan, 2007) 99 < https://eprints.soton.ac.uk>. Further details are included in Chapter 6.

62.

Stephen Cramond, Explainer: Open Access vs Traditional Academic Journal Publishers (2011) The Conversation < http://theconversation.com>.

63.

Izaskun Alvarez-Meaza, Naiara Pikatza-Gorrotxategi & Rosa Maria Rio-Belver, Knowledge Sharing and Transfer in an Open Innovation Context: Mapping Scientific Evolution, 6 JOURNAL OF OPEN INNOVATION: TECHNOLOGY, MARKET, AND COMPLEXITY 186, 187 (2020).

64.

Balázs Bodó, Daniel Gervais & João Pedro Quintais, Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing?, 26 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 311, 321 (2018).

65.

Martin Zeilinger, Digital Art as ‘Monetised Graphics’: Enforcing Intellectual Property on the Blockchain, 31 PHILOS. TECHNOL. 15, 25 (2018).

66.

Hon Michael Kirby, ‘Changing fashions and enduring values in law reform’ (Speech, Conference on Law Reform, University of Hong Kong, 17 September 2011) < https://www.alrc.gov.au/news/changing-fashions-and-enduring-values-in-law-reform/>.

Title: An Australian-Based View on Reconstructing Copyright Licensing Laws
Authors: Robert Cunningham
Marinos Papadopoulos
Nikos Koutras
Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore
Book: Comparative Approaches in Law and Policy
Print ISBN: 978-981-9944-59-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-9944-60-6

Copyright Year: 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4460-6_19