Digitisation, Cultural Institutions and Intellectual Property

Radim Polčák

Abstract

Digitisation of cultural content represents one of most challenging problems of contemporary IP law. Cultural artefacts, let it be books, paintings or 3D objects, are often very old, so there are no issues in copyright protection of their content. However, the public availability of such content is in these cases strongly limited namely due to physical conditions of the carriers and subsequent conservation demands.

Digitisation might serve here as powerful enabler of re-use of these works that are frequently of enormous cultural value. On the other hand, getting useful (and re-usable) digital images of 2D or 3D cultural objects means to invest into advanced technologies that are able to capture the respective content while protecting its fragile carriers from physical damage or destruction. Consequently, there is a need for business models that can motivate investors by offering them valuable consideration for such efforts.

Recently, such business models are based namely on exclusive agreements between digitisers and cultural institutions that, together with specific copyright protection of digitised images in some jurisdictions, create new form of legal barriers to re-use of even very old cultural content. The paper critically discusses these new restrictive legal instruments namely in the light of the revised PSI re-use directive.

Keywords

Intellectual Property, Public Sector Information, GLAM Institutions, Digitisation

Full Text:

References

Show references Hide references

Alterwain, A. Google Books and Digitisation of Libraries: Fair Use or Extension of Copyright? Convergence, 2007, Vol. 3(2).

Bogataj Jančič, M., Pusser, J., Sappa, C., Torremans, P. Policy Recommendation as to the Isuue of the Proposed Inclusion of Cultural and Research Institutions in the Scope of PSI Directive, Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 2012, Vol. 6(3).

Bollier, D. Why We Must Talk about the Information Commons, Law Library Journal, 2004, Vol. 96(2).

Burri-Nenova, M. Trade and Culture: Making the WTO Legal Framework Conducive to Cultural Considerations, Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 2008, Vol. 5(3).

Colston, C. Challenges to Information Abstract Retrieval – a Global Solution? International Journal of Law and Technology, 2012, Vol. 10(3).

Cornish, W. Conserving Culture and Copyright: A Partial History, Edinburgh Law Review, 2009, Vol. 8.

Cunningham, R. The Tragedy of (Ignoring) the Information Semicommons: A Cultural Environmental Perspective, Akron Intellectual Property Journal, 2010, Vol. 4(1).

Deveci, H. E. Databases: Sui Generis Stronger Bet than Abstract Copyright? International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2004, Vol. 12(2). DOI: 10.1093/ijlit/12.2.178

Evans, D. E. Who Owns Ideas? Foreign Affairs, 2002, vol. 81.

Ghosh, S. The Fable of the Commons: Exclusivity and the Construction of Intellectual Property Markets, University of California Davis Law Review, 2006-2007, vol. 40.

Glenn, P. Legal Traditions of the World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Goldstein, P. Intellectual Property: The Tough New Realities That Could Make or Break Your Business, London: Penguin Books, 2007.

James, W. Pragmatism. Rockville: ARC Manor, 2008.

Leith, P. McCullagh, K. Developing European Legal Information Markets based on Government Information, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2004, Vol. 12.

Lessig, L. Freeculture, New York: The Penguin Press, 2004.

Lüder, T. Next Ten Years in E.U. Copyright: Making Markets Work, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 2007-2008, vol. 18.

Madison, M., Frischmann, B. T., Strandburg, K. Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment, Cornell Law Review, 2014, Vol. 95.

Orssich, I. State Aid for Films and Other Audiovisual Works – Current Affairs and New Developments, European State Aid Law Quarterly, 2012, Vol. 1.

Perry, M. Acts of Parliament: Privatisation, Promulgation and Crown Copyright - is there a Need for a Royal Royalty? New Zeland Law Review, 1998.

Rorty, R. The Banality of Pragmatism and the Poetry of Justice, Southern California Law Review, 1990, Vol. 63.

Samuel, G. Epistemology and Method in Law. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2003.

Sappa, C. Selected Intellectual Property Issues and PSI Re-use, Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 2012, vol. 6(3).

Sappa, C., Polčák, R., Myška, M., Harašta, J. Legal Aspects of Public Sector Information: Best Practices in Intellectual Property, Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 2014, vol. 8(2).

Scotchmer, S. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1991, Vol. 5(1).

Thomsen, E. Access to patent information and documentation in public patent libraries, World Patent Information, 1981, vol. 3(3). DOI: 10.1016/0172-2190(81)90143-5

Wheatley, C. T. Overreaching Technological Means for Protection of Copyright: Identifying the Limits of Copyright in Works in Digital Form in the United States and the United Kingdom. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 2007, Vol. 7.

Wienand, J. P. D. Museums and International Copyright Owner: Multimedia Problems, International Legal Practitioner, 1996, Vol. 21.

Zweigert, K., Kötz, H. An Introduction to Comparative Law, transl. Weir, T. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.


https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2015-2-7


Copyright (c) 2015 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology