DOCSLIB.ORG

The Author-Performer Divide in Intellectual Property Law: a Comparative Analysis of the American, Australian, British and French Legal Frameworks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Author-Performer Divide in Intellectual Property Law: a Comparative Analysis of the American, Australian, British and French Legal Frameworks Title and Declaration The Author-Performer Divide in Intellectual Property Law: A Comparative Analysis of the American, Australian, British and French Legal Frameworks Volume I of II Submitted by Mathilde Goizane Alice Pavis, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law, March 2016. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Acknowledgements I am grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for funding my docoral research, and to the InVisible Difference project; the Sciences, Culture and the Law Research Centre (University of Exeter) as well as the John W. Kluge Center (US Library of Congress) for offering a supportive environment in which to grow as a scholar. I must thank my colleagues and friends who have contributed to this thesis with their feedback, encouragement and the many cups of tea we have shared – all were equally useful. I am particularly thankful to my supervisor Professor Charlotte Waelde for her unfailing support and mentorship. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for keeping me away from my books when I most needed it but could not bring myself to leaving the library. Last but not least, to Clément, for always leading by example… 2 Thesis Abstract Western intellectual property frameworks have at least one feature in common: performers are less protected than authors. This situation knows many justifications, although all but one have been dismissed by the literature: performers are simply less creative than authors. As a result, the legal protection covering their work has been proportionally reduced compared to that of their authorial peers. This thesis investigates this phenomenon that it calls the 'author-performer divide'. It uncovers the culturally-rooted principles and legal reasoning that policy-makers and judges of Australia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States have developed to create in the legal narrative a hierarchy between authors and performers. It reveals that those intellectual property systems, though continuously reformed, still contain outdated conceptions of creativity based on the belief in ex nihilo creation and over- intellectualised representations of the creative process. Those two precepts combined have led legal discourse to portray performers as their authors' puppets, thus underserving of authorship themselves. This thesis reviews arguments raised against improving the performers' regime to challenge the preconception of performers as uncreative agents and questions the divide it supports. To this end, it seeks to update the representations of creativity currently conveyed in the law by drawing on the findings of other academic disciplines such as creativity research, performance theories as well as music, theatre and dance studies. This comparative inter-disciplinary study aims to move current legal debates on performers' rights away from the recurring themes and repeated arguments in the scholarship such as issues of fixation or of competing claims, all of which have made conversations stagnate. By including disciplines beyond the law, this analysis seeks to advance the legal literature on the question of performers' intellectual property protection and shift thinking about performative forms of creativity. 3 Table of Content Volume I TITLE AND DECLARATION .................................................................................................................. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 2 THESIS ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 3 TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................................................................ 4 TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... 10 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 11 I. RESEARCH PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 12 II. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 17 A. Interdisciplinary research ...................................................................................................... 17 B. Qualitative Comparative analysis ......................................................................................... 19 1. Defining ‘legal narratives’ ................................................................................................................ 19 2. Data collection ................................................................................................................................. 19 a) Selection of jurisdictions ............................................................................................................. 20 b) Selection of cases ....................................................................................................................... 22 c) Selection of policy documents..................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER ONE: IDENTIFIED OBSTACLES TO PERFORMERS’ PROTECTION ............................ 27 I. SHARING THE COPYRIGHT CAKE ................................................................................................... 28 II. LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES ................................................................................................................ 30 A. Definition anxiety ................................................................................................................ 31 B. Fearing “legal millefeuilles” ............................................................................................... 36 C. Fixating on fixation ............................................................................................................. 45 D. Property orthodoxy ............................................................................................................. 62 III. LAW AS CULTURAL PRODUCT: FROM SOCIAL TO LEGAL SEGREGATION OF PERFORMERS ................. 75 CHAPTER TWO: THE AUTHOR-PERFORMER DIVIDE .................................................................... 78 I. WRITING THE DIVIDE: THE PART OF LEGISLATORS ......................................................................... 78 A. The divide in law ................................................................................................................. 79 1. Segregating nomenclature of rights ..................................................................................................... 79 a) Joining the neighbourhood .......................................................................................................... 81 b) Name calling ............................................................................................................................... 85 c) Neighbours beyond copyright ..................................................................................................... 89 2. A gap in substance, a substantial gap ............................................................................................. 89 a) Economic rights ............................................................................................................................... 90 i. Forms and scopes of consent....................................................................................................... 93 ii. Filling gaps with analogies ......................................................................................................... 100 b) Moral rights .................................................................................................................................... 101 3. Discrepancies in the duration of rights .......................................................................................... 103 B. Intended differences ......................................................................................................... 105 II. PERFORMING THE DIVIDE: THE PART OF JUDGES ......................................................................... 110 A. Interpreting the divide ...................................................................................................... 111 B. An untenable divide .......................................................................................................... 114 1. Artificial lines ................................................................................................................................... 114 2. Perpetuating power patterns .......................................................................................................... 119 3. Blurred lines ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Register of Copyr1ght.S
    SIXTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYR1GHT.S FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1966 COPYRIGHT OFFICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IL.C. Card No. 10-36017 This report is reprinted from the Annual Report of the Libdnof Congreee for the fiscal year ending June 30,1966 Contents THECOPYRIGHT OFFICE ............................ 1 The Year's Copyright Business ......................... 2 Official publications .............................. 4 Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congress ................ 4 Administrative Developments ........................... 4 Problems of Registrability ........................... 5 Organizational Problems ............................ 5 Notices of Intention To Use ...................... : ... 5 Legislative Developments ............................ 6 Judicial Developments ..............................8 Performing Rights and Community Antenna Systems ............... 8 Rights of Exhibition and Copying ....................... 10 Author's "Moral Right" ........................... 11 Subject Matter of Copyright ......................... 13 Publication ................................. 16 Notice of Copyright ............................. 17 Copyright Registration ............................ 19 Ownership. Assignment. and Renewal of Copyright ............... 21 Infringement and Remedies .........................23 Other Judicial Developments .........................26 International Developments .......................... 28 Tables: International Copyright Relations of the United States as of December
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT of the REGISTER of COPYRIGHTS for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30
    ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS For the fiscal year ending June 30 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS / WASHINGTON / 1971 L.C. Card No. 10-35017 This report is reprinted from the Annd Report of the Libmrirrn of Congress, for the f~calyear ending June 30, 1970 Contents The Copyright Office .......................................1 General Revision of the Copyright Law ..............................1 The Year's Copyright Business ...................................3 Official Publications ........................................4 Copyright Contributions to the Library Collections ........................4 Administrative Developments ...................................5 Legislative Developments .....................................5 Judicial Developments .......................................6 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright Protection .......................7 Notice of Copyright ......................................8 Ownership and Transfer of Rights ...............................9 Infringement and Remedies .................................10 Unfair Competition and Other Theories of Protection ......................11 International Copyright Developments ..............................12 Tables: International Copyright Relations of the United Statesas ofOctober 10. 1970 .........14 Total Registration. 1790-1970 ..................................16 Renewal Registrations by Subject Matter. Calendar Years 1909-1969 ..............19 Registrations by Subject Matter Classes. Fiscal Years 1966-70 .................20 Number of Articles Deposited.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Copyrights
    SIXTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1965 COPYRIGHT OFFICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON: 1966 This report is ,mprintd from the Ann& Report of tbLibr& of Uunqnwu for the fiscal year ending June 30,1966 Contents THECOPYRIGHT Om ........................................................ 1 The Year's Copyright Business ............................................ ; ..... 2 Official Publications ........................................; .................. 3 Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congrrss ................................ 3 Administrative Developments ................................................... 4 Probkxm Arising From Computer Technology ................................... 4 Nature of Copyrighted Material Renewed ....................................... 5 Mexican Search Project ...................................................... 6 Visitors and Exhibits ......................................................... 6 Storage of Deposit Copies .......................................... ......... 7 Legislative Developments ....................................................... 7 Judicial Developments ......................................................... 8 Actions Pending Against the Register of Copyrights ............................... 8 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright Protection ............................... 9 Publication .................................................. : .............. 12 NoticeofCopyright .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: a Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series 4-2012 A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age Rami Olwan Queensland University of Technology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Olwan, Rami. 2012. A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age. PIJIP Research Paper No. 2012-07. American University Washington College of Law, Washington DC. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and Technology, Law, & Security Program at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF THE JORDANIAN COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE INTERNET AGE Rami Olwan1 ABSTRACT On October 4, 2004, Brazil and Argentina requested that WIPO adopt a development-oriented approach to IP and to reconsider its work in relation to developing countries. In October, 2007, WIPO member States adopted a historic decision for the benefit of developing countries, to establish a WIPO Development Agenda. Although there have been several studies related to IP and development that call for IP laws in developing countries to be development-friendly, there is little research that attempts to provide developing countries with practical measures to achieve that goal.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: a Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age
    Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review Volume 35 Number 2 Spring 2013 Article 2 Spring 2013 A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age Rami Olwan LLB, Yarmouk University, Jordan; LLM, Buckingham University, United Kingdom; LLM, Columbia University, New York, United States; PhD, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rami Olwan, A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age, 35 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 209 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol35/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age * RAMI OLWAN “For too long IPRs have been regarded as food for the rich countries and poison for poor countries . [I]t is not as simple as that. Poor countries may find them useful provided they are accommodated
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Unrealistic Solution for Development Provided by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on Copyright
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series 4-2012 Beyond the Unrealistic Solution for Development Provided by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on Copyright Alberto Cerda Silva Universidad de Chile, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Cerda Silva, Alberto, 2012. Beyond the Unrealistic Solution for Development Provided by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on Copyright. PIJIP Research Paper no. 2012-08 American University Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and Technology, Law, & Security Program at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND THE UNREALISTIC SOLUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED BY THE APPENDIX OF THE BERNE CONVENTION ON COPYRIGHT Alberto J. Cerda Silva ABSTRACT The standards of copyright protection promoted by the Berne Convention are highly problematic for developing countries because these countries need to ensure a wide dissemination of works for teaching, scholarship, and research purposes. In order to accommodate these needs and to promote accession to this Convention, the 1971 Paris Act of the Berne Convention, included an Appendix that allowed developing countries to issue compulsory licenses for translating and/or reproducing foreign works into languages of general use in their territories.
    [Show full text]