DOCSLIB.ORG

Does the Law of Copyright in the UK and Ireland Conflict with the Creative Practices of Irish Traditional Musicians?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Does the Law of Copyright in the UK and Ireland Conflict with the Creative Practices of Irish Traditional Musicians? Does the Law of Copyright in the UK and Ireland Conflict with the Creative Practices of Irish Traditional Musicians? A Study of the Impact of Law on a Traditional Music Network By Luke Thomas McDonagh A thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Law Queen Mary, University of London February 2011 Declaration I declare that the work presented in this thesis is the result of my own research, undertaken at the School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London. Luke Thomas McDonagh 25th February 2011 2 Abstract The objective of this thesis is to investigate whether copyright law has the potential to affect the creative practices of Irish traditional musicians. By outlining the central tenets of copyright law, including both economic and moral rights, the thesis aims to identify the crucial issues that are relevant to the relationship between copyright and music. As described over the course of this thesis, Irish traditional music is typically created and performed in an environment within which free-sharing and musical borrowing are encouraged. By dissecting the crucial issues of conflict between copyright and Irish traditional music, the thesis attempts to discover whether any potential solutions can be found within the law to resolve these conflicts. In order to do this, empirical research is undertaken, so that the perspectives of a number of Irish traditional musicians can be assessed in relation to both the potential conflicts and the potential solutions. This thesis aims to evaluate six things: - The coherence of the notion of „originality‟ under copyright in relation to the practices of Irish traditional music - The suitability of the notion of „authorship‟ of musical works under copyright in relation to the network of Irish traditional musicians - The suitability of the notion of „joint authorship‟ of musical works under copyright in relation to the collective forms of authorship present in the network of Irish traditional musicians - The potential for the doctrine of infringement to interfere with the practices of Irish traditional musicians - The applicability of moral rights in the context of Irish traditional music - The suitability of the copyright licensing model in relation to the practices of the Irish traditional music network. 3 Table of Contents Declaration.......................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 13 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 14 Table of Legislation .......................................................................................................... 17 Table of Cases .................................................................................................................. 20 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 26 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................ 26 Organisation of the Thesis.................................................................................................... 27 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 27 Chapter Outlines ............................................................................................................... 27 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 28 Theoretical Data ............................................................................................................... 28 Empirical Data .................................................................................................................. 29 Online Survey – March-April 2010 .............................................................................. 29 Interviews – November 2009-September 2010 ............................................................ 30 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 31 Chapter 1: Exploring the Relationship between Music and Copyright ............................ 33 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 33 1.1. Exploring Subsistence of Copyright in Musical Works and Sound Recordings in the UK and Ireland ..................................................................................................................... 34 1.1.1. The Musical Work .................................................................................................. 34 1.1.1.1. The Statute of Anne, 1710 and the case of Bach v Longman in 1777 ............. 35 1.1.1.2 International Conventions ................................................................................. 37 1.1.1.3. UK .................................................................................................................... 39 1.1.1.4. Ireland .............................................................................................................. 40 1.1.1.5. Exploring the Notion of „Musical Work‟ under Copyright ............................. 41 1.1.1.6. The Distinction between the Composition and the Arrangement under Copyright ...................................................................................................................... 44 1.1.2. Sound Recordings ................................................................................................... 49 4 1.1.2.1. International Conventions ................................................................................ 49 1.1.2.2. UK .................................................................................................................... 50 1.1.2.3. Ireland .............................................................................................................. 51 1.1.3. The Requirement of Originality ............................................................................. 52 1.1.3.1. UK .................................................................................................................... 52 1.1.3.2. Ireland .............................................................................................................. 58 1.1.4. The Requirement of Fixation .................................................................................. 59 1.1.4.1. UK .................................................................................................................... 59 1.1.4.2. Ireland .............................................................................................................. 60 1.2. Authorship and First Ownership of Copyright .............................................................. 60 1.2.1. The Musical Work .................................................................................................. 60 1.2.1.1. UK .................................................................................................................... 60 1.2.1.2. Ireland .............................................................................................................. 64 1.2.2. Sound Recordings ................................................................................................... 64 1.2.2.1. UK .................................................................................................................... 64 1.2.2.2. Ireland .............................................................................................................. 65 1.3. Joint Authorship ............................................................................................................ 65 1.3.1. UK .......................................................................................................................... 65 1.3.2. Ireland ..................................................................................................................... 66 1.3.3. Exploring the Requirement of a „Significant and Original‟ Contribution in relation to Musical Works ............................................................................................................. 66 1.4. The Acts Restricted by Copyright and Infringement .................................................... 71 1.4.1. UK .......................................................................................................................... 71 1.4.2. Ireland ..................................................................................................................... 72 1.4.3. Infringement under the CDPA and CRRA ............................................................. 72 1.4.4. The Meaning of „Substantial Part‟.......................................................................... 73 1.5 Moral Rights ................................................................................................................... 78 1.5.1. UK .........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1St Edition)
    Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1st Edition) Ronan Deazley, Kerry Patterson & Paul Torremans COPYRIGHT IN TITLES AND NEWSPAPER HEADLINES 1 COPYRIGHT IN THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLISHED 7 EDITIONS COPYRIGHT IN PSEUDONYMOUS AND ANONYMOUS WORKS 10 COPYRIGHT IN NEWSPAPER ARTICLES 13 COPYRIGHT IN PHOTOGRAPHS: DURATION 19 COPYRIGHT IN PHOTOGRAPHS: OWNERSHIP 26 USING INSUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF A COPYRIGHT PROTECTED WORK 33 COPYRIGHT ACROSS BORDERS 38 MORAL RIGHTS: ATTRIBUTION 45 MORAL RIGHTS: FALSE ATTRIBUTION 52 MORAL RIGHTS: INTEGRITY 55 MORAL RIGHTS: THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS AND 66 FILMS This is a compendium of the first version of the Guidance Notes on aspects of UK Copyright law that were created as part of Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks, through support by the RCUK funded Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy (CREATe), AHRC Grant Number AH/K000179/1. The second edition, edited by K. Patterson, can be downloaded individually or as part of the CREATe Working Paper: Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (2nd Edition) available at www.digitisingmorgan.org/resources. Date Created: January 2017 Cite as: R. Deazley, K. Patterson and P. Torremans, Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1st Edition) (2017), available at: www.digitisingmorgan.org/resources COPYRIGHT IN TITLES AND NEWSPAPER HEADLINES Ronan Deazley and Kerry Patterson 1. Introduction What are the implications of the law for digitisation projects involving newspaper headlines and other titles? This guidance explores the legal background to copyright protection in titles and newspaper headlines, with reference to relevant cases. 2. Legislative Context Literary works first received statutory protection in the UK under the Statute of Anne 1710.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context
    The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context Olufunmilayo B. Arewa* Although much separates them musically, George Harrison and Michael Bolton share a common legal fate. Both have been held liable in copyright infringement cases in which a court articulated theories of liability based on subconscious infringement. This Article discusses how decisions in the Bolton, Harrison, and other copyright infringement cases reflect a common failing. Such decisions highlight the incomplete nature of the theories of creativity and creation processes in copyright doctrine. After discussing current approaches to questions of creation, this Article suggests ways in which copyright theory can better incorporate a contextualized understanding of creativity and creation processes. Creativity in copyright is frequently characterized as not involving copying, which is typically thought to be antithetical to both originality and creativity. This stigmatization of copying, however, means that copyright theory cannot adequately account for the reality of not infrequent similarities between works that are a result of copying both ideas and expression in the creation of new works. This missing theoretical link has significant implications for copyright in practice. The lack of legal analysis of the full range of creativity and processes of creation is also a major reason why copyright theory often has such difficulty delineating what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate copying of existing works. * Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. A.B. Harvard College; M.A. Anthropology, Ph.D. Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley; A.M. Applied Economics, University of Michigan; J.D., Harvard Law School. For their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts, I am indebted to Margaret Chon, Julie Cohen, Paul Heald, Kevin Jon Heller, Andrew Koppelman, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Jacqueline Lipton, Andrew P.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Synthesis
    7 | SYNTHESIS CHAPTER 1. SYNTHESIS This chapter provides the rationale and context for Enquiries into Intellectual Property’s Economic Impact and highlights its most significant findings. In doing so, the chapter presents the major themes of the overall report, which are 1) the importance of various types of intellectual property as sources of growth and innovation in today’s economies; and 2) the effects on IP systems and stakeholders of major developments such as content digitisation, the growth of the Internet, and globalisation. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities or third party. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. It should be noted that statistical data on Israeli patents and trademarks are supplied by the patent and trademark offices of the relevant countries. ENQUIRIES INTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY'S ECONOMIC IMPACT © OECD 2015 8 | SYNTHESIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key challenges • Copyright appears to be the type of IP that has been attracting business investment at the highest growth rate and it is undergoing statutory review in many countries, yet there are fewer empirical studies about copyright than about patents. Encouraging and enabling the collection and availability of more data on copyright would facilitate data-driven copyright policy. In fact, robust evidence on the use of IP rights generally and on their economic and social impacts is essential for sound IP systems. Presently, however, relatively little concrete evidence is available to support the common assumption that IP rights encourage greater innovation and creativity.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy and Ethics Jon M
    Cornell Law Review Volume 88 Article 2 Issue 5 July 2003 Normative Copyright: A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy and Ethics Jon M. Garon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jon M. Garon, Normative Copyright: A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy and Ethics, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 1278 (2003) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol88/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORMATIVE COPYRIGHT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COPYRIGHT PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS Jon M. Garont This Article explores the theoretical underpinnings of copyright to deter- mine which theories provide an appropriate basis for copyright. The Article first critiques the leading conceptual underpinnings, including naturallaw, copyright's intangible nature, economic balancing and copyright's role in creatingincentives for new authorship. The Article then addresses each of the three core elements in normative justice-the social contract, the legal rules, and the mechanisms of enforcement-to develop a schema for reestablishing a normatively valid copyright policy. The research presented demonstrates that the intangible nature of copy- right does not govern the public's attitude toward copyright. Instead, norms associated with plagiarism illustrate society's ability to accept intangible property rules, while comparison with shoplifting indicates a strong corollary to piracy involving physical goods.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right "To Authorize" in Us Copyright Law: Questions of Contributory
    87 Copyright (c) 1996 PTC Research Foundation of Franklin Pierce Law Center IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 1996 37 IDEA 87 THE RIGHT "TO AUTHORIZE" IN U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW: QUESTIONS OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT AND EXTRATERRITORIALITY PHANESH KONERU * * Third Year Student, J.D. Program, University of San Diego School of Law; Ph.D., University of Southern California, 1992; admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The author is grateful to Professors Paul Horton and Darrell Bratton of the University of San Diego Law School for their helpful discussions during preparation of this manuscript. Any errors, omissions or misstatements should be attributed to the author alone. This work is dedicated to the author's parents and wife. I. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 n1 (hereinafter "the Copyright Act") grants copyright owners exclusive rights "to do" and "to authorize" certain acts. n2 Since the addition of the phrase "to authorize" to the copyright statute in 1976, n3 courts have been divided over the scope of the authorization right. [*88] The question has been whether a violation of the authorization right results in direct n4 or third party infringement. n5 A direct infringer is always liable to the copyright owner, whereas a third party infringer is liable only if the authorized infringement actually takes place. n6 Substantial authority argues for the proposition that the right "to authorize" is no more than a mere codification of the common law doctrines of contributory infringement and vicarious liability, identified as the "codification theory." n7 Under this theory, for an authorizer n8 to be liable, [*89] conduct that amounts to authorization should be analyzed under third party liability theories which require that the authorized infringement has actually occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • INTELLECTUAL PRIVILEGE: Copyright, Common Law, and The
    INTELLECTUAL PRIVILEGE Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good TOM W. BELL Arlington, Virginia Founders’ Copyright 2014 by Tom Bell. (See opposite for more information.) Second printing, April 2018 Printed in the United States of America Mercatus Center at George Mason University 3434 Washington Blvd., 4th Floor Arlington, VA 22201 www.mercatus.org 703-993-4930 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bell, Tom W. Intellectual privilege : copyright, common law, and the common good / Tom W. Bell. pages cm ISBN 978-0-9892193-8-9 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-0-9892193-9-6 (e-book (kindle)) 1. Copyright--United States. I. Title. KF2994.B45 2014 346.7304’82--dc23 2014005816 COPYRIGHT NOTE Not long ago, in “Five Reforms for Copyright” (chapter 7 of Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess, published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in 2012), I suggested that the United States should return to the kind of copyright the Founders supported: the one they created in their 1790 Copyright Act. The Founders’ copyright had a term of only fourteen years with the option to renew for another fourteen. It conditioned copyright on the satisfaction of strict statutory formali- ties and covered only maps, charts, and books. The Founders’ copyright protected only against unauthorized reproductions and offered only com- paratively limited remedies. This book follows through on that policy advice. The Mercatus Center and I agreed to publish it under terms chosen to recreate the legal effect of the Founders’ 1790 Copyright Act. For example, the book’s copy- right will expire in 2042 (if not before), and you should feel free to make a movie or other derivative work at any time.
    [Show full text]
  • D4.1 Analysis of Available Resources in the AV Sector
    Project Number: 325135 Project Acronym: FORW AR D Project Title: Framework for a EU-wide Audiovisual Orphan Works Registry Instrument: Pilot B Thematic Priority: CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 D4.1 Analysis of available resources in the AV sector Due Date: 30/06/2014 Submission Date: 12/07/2014 Start Date of Project: 01/07/2013 Duration of Project: 36 months Partner in Charge of Deliverable EYE Film Institute Version Status Final Dissemination Level PU File Name: FORWARD D4.1.docx FORWARD Framework for a EU-wide Audiovisual Orphan Works Registry CIP ICT-PSP 325135 Revision History Revision Date Author Organisation Description 1 27/06/2014 EYE Team EYE Draft 2 02/07/2014 GScipione CINECA Revision 3 10/07/2014 NMazznti CRB Final revision D4.1 – Analysis of available resources in the AV sector 2 / 156 EYE Film Institute FORWARD Framework for a EU-wide Audiovisual Orphan Works Registry CIP ICT-PSP 325135 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Legal environment................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 Protection term.......................................................................................................................................................3 1.1.2 Rightsholders .........................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Claiming the Copyright Amanda Reid*
    Reid FINAL COPY.docx (Do Not Delete) 7/7/2016 3:29 PM YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Claiming the Copyright Amanda Reid* Introduction ..................................................................................................... 425 I. Why Claim ................................................................................................... 429 II. History of Claiming ................................................................................. 434 III. Claiming Today ..........................................................................................444 IV. A Modest Proposal: Claim the Copyright .......................................... 451 Conclusion .........................................................................................................469 Introduction Our modern world is filled with a dizzying number of copyrights.1 The texts, tweets, and selfies created each day are automatically copyrighted, as are home movies, diary entries, and Play-doh® sculptures. All original works of au- thorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression are protected for seventy * Associate Professor of Law, Florida Coastal School of Law. Ph.D., University of Florida, College of Journalism and Communications, 2004; J.D., University of Florida, Levin College of Law, 2004; M.A., Florida State University, Speech Communication, 1999; B.A., Florida State University, Communication and Philosophy, 1998. Participants at the 2015 Works-in-Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium (WIPIP) provided valuable insights for which I am grateful.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right Patrick R
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 92 | Issue 4 Article 5 2014 Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right Patrick R. Goold University of California, Berkeley, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Patrick R. Goold, Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right, 92 Neb. L. Rev. (2014) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol92/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Patrick R. Goold* Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right TABLE OF CONTENTS I. History of the Derivative Work Right in Anglo- American Copyright ................................... 849 A. Anglo-American Copyright During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries ......................... 850 B. Derivative Works in Twentieth Century U.S. Copyright ......................................... 856 1. The 1909 Copyright Act........................ 856 2. From 1909 to 1976 ............................ 858 a. Motion Pictures ............................ 860 b. Radio Broadcasting ........................ 862 c. Cable Television ........................... 865 3. The Copyright Act 1976........................ 866 C. Derivative Works in Twentieth Century U.K. Copyright ......................................... 868 1. The 1911 Act and the Gramophone Case ....... 869 2. The Copyright Act 1956 and the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 ................. 871 D. Summary ......................................... 874 II. Modern Doctrine of the Derivative Work Right in Anglo- American Copyright ................................... 874 A. The Right of Reproduction ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Enclosures of the Mind: Intellectual Property from a Global Perspective
    Enclosures of the Mind: Intellectual Property from a Global Perspective Wybo Wiersma University of Groningen [email protected] A Confrontation with the Subject determination who had to reject the authori- ties of distant, uninformed powers. We must “Governments of the Industrial World, you declare our virtual selves immune to your weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from sovereignty, even as we continue to consent Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On be- to your rule over our bodies. We will spread half of the future, I ask you of the past to leave ourselves across the Planet so that no one can us alone. You are not welcome among us. You arrest our thoughts. have no sovereignty where we gather. We will create a civilization of the Mind in We have no elected government, nor are we Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair likely to have one, so I address you with no than the world your governments have made greater authority than that with which liberty before.” itself always speaks. I declare the global so- - From the Declaration of the Independence cial space we are building to be naturally in- of Cyberspace, by John P. Barlow, co-founder dependent of the tyrannies you seek to impose of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.1 on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement 1 Introduction we have true reason to fear. As this almost unearthly quote of J. Barlow Governments derive their just powers from suggests, cyberspace — or for many of us just the consent of the governed.
    [Show full text]