Interrogating copyright history

An understanding of the past – how we got to where we are today – informs the approach of much recent scholarship about copyright. The EIPR is no exception: in an article published in 2003, one co-author of this article (Ronan Deazley) argued that the interpretation of aspects of eighteenth century copyright history – the ruling of the House of Lords in Donaldson v Becket in 1774 – had implications for twenty-first century policy-making and judicial reasoning. This interest in the past has been traced to a ‘historical turn’ in scholarship in the late 1990s, which marked a move away from the more forward-looking approach of the earlier twentieth century, when lawyers had little time for historical perspectives. The climate of renewed scholarly interest in copyright history in recent decades, amongst other things, has seen the launch in 2008 of the AHRC funded digital archive of Primary Sources on Copyright History (hosted at www.copyrighthistory.org), now expanded to cover seven jurisdictions (Italy, UK, USA, Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands), as well as the founding of the International Society for the History and Theory of IP (or ‘ISHTIP’) which will see its 8th annual workshop in July 2016. That both initiatives are linked to CREATe (and so to both co-authors ), the RCUK-funded centre for research into copyright, the creative economy, and the future of creative production in the digital age, illustrates well a current perception that a study of the past is of value to those researching the present

Writing About Comics and Copyright

Academics who research and write about the visual world often complain about the way in which copyright law can hinder their scholarly endeavours, and with good reason. Writing about visual work without reproducing that work is an impoverished exercise, for both writer and reader. But, reproducing visual material can trigger concerns on the part of the conscientious author or – more often – demands on the part of the publisher about the need to secure copyright permission. In this respect, comics scholarship is no different from any other field of visual or cultural studies. Clearing rights for publication can be frustrating and time-consuming, and academic publishers often manage the business of copyright clearance by making their authors responsible for securing permissions. European Comic Art provides a good example. When an article is accepted for publication, authors are ‘required to submit copyright agreements and all necessary permission letters for reprinting or modifying copyrighted materials, both textual and graphic’, and are ‘responsible for obtaining all permissions and clearing any associated fees.’ Not all publishers, however, adhere to such a black and white position. The Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics is published by Taylor & Francis. In the ‘Authors Services’ section of their website, the publisher acknowledges that reproducing short extracts of text and other types of material ‘for the purposes of criticism may be possible without formal permission’. To better understand when permission is needed, the publisher directs its authors to the Publishers Association’s Permissions Guidelines. To better understand what rights need to be cleared, authors are directed to the publisher’s own FAQs about using third-party material in an academic article. Thirteen of the publisher’s FAQs expressly relate to the reproduction of visual material, and of those only two concede the possibility of reproducing work without permission (they relate to, respectively, the use of ‘screenshots or grabs of film or video’ and the use of ‘very old paintings’). What is not clear from the FAQs document is whether the publisher is purporting to accurately represent the law in this area. If so – as we shall see – the FAQs document is clearly deficient. If, however, Taylor & Francis is simply using the FAQs document to set out the parameters of its own editorial policy on the reproduction of copyright-protected third-party material, then so be it: the publisher is perfectly entitled to adopt such editorial guidelines as it sees fit. I would suggest, though, that in cleaving to an editorial policy that fails to take full advantage of the scope which the copyright regime allows for the lawful reproduction of copyright-protected material without need for permission, the publisher is missing an opportunity to enable and encourage its contributors to augment and enrich comics scholarship as a discipline. It is in this respect that The Comics Grid is more ambitious and forward-thinking: it actively promotes the lawful use of copyright-protected content for the purposes of academic scholarship. The journal’s copyright policy sets out that third-party images are reproduced on the basis of ‘educational fair use’, with readers and contributors directed to Columbia University Libraries’ Fair Use Checklist for further information. This is a checklist that has been developed to help academics and other scholars make a reasonable and balanced determination about whether their use of copyright-protected work is permissible under s.107 of the US Copyright Act 1976: the fair use provision. Obviously, The Comics Grid locates its copyright advice within the context of US copyright law. But, as a Glasgow-based academic, with an interest in both the history and the current state of the UK copyright regime, my particular focus within this comic concerns the extent to which academics – or indeed anyone interested in writing about comics – can rely upon UK copyright law to reproduce extracts and excerpts from published comics and graphic novels without having to ask the copyright owner for permission. To address that issue we must consider three key questions. What constitutes ‘a work’ protected by copyright within the context of comics publishing? What does it mean to speak of ‘insubstantial copying’ from a copyright-protected comic? And what can be copied lawfully from a comic for the purpose of criticism and review

Comics, Copyright and Academic Publishing

This article considers the extent to which UK-based academics can rely upon the copyright regime to reproduce extracts and excerpts from published comics and graphic novels without having to ask the copyright owner of those works for permission. In doing so, it invites readers to engage with a broader debate about the nature, demands and process of academic publishing

Privilege and Property. Essays on the History of Copyright

Copyright law is the site of significant contemporary controversy. In recent years copyright history has transformed as a subject from being one of interest to a few books historians to the focus of sustained historical investigation attracting the attention of scholars from across the humanities. This book comprises a collection of essays on copyright history by leading experts drawn from a range of countries and disciplinary perspectives. Covering the period from 1450 to 1900, these essays engage with a number of related themes. The first considers the general movement, from the sixteenth century onwards, from privilege to property-based conceptions of copyright protection. The second addresses the relationship between the protection provided for literary and print materials and that provided for other forms of cultural production. The third concerns the significance and relevance of these various histories in shaping and informing contemporary policy and academic practice. Essays include: 0. The History of Copyright History, by Kretschmer, Deazley & Bently; 1. From Gunpowder to Print: The Common Origins of Copyright and Patent, by Joanna Kostylo; 2. A Mongrel of early modern copyright: Scotland in European Persepctive, by Alastair Mann; 3. The Public Sphere and the Emergence of Copyright: Areopagitica, the Stationers’ Company, and the Statute of Anne, by Mark Rose; 4. Early American Printing Privileges: the Ambivalent Origins of Authors’ Copyright in America, by Oren Bracha; 5. Author and Work in the French Print Privileges System: Some Milestones, by Laurent Pfister; 6. A Venetian Experiment on Perpetual Copyright, by Maurizio Borghi; 7. Les formalités son mortes, vive les formalities! Copyright formalities in nineteenth century Europe, by Stef van Gompel; 8. The Berlin Publisher Friedrich Nicolai and the reprinting sections of the Prussian Statute Book of 1794, by Friedemann Kawohl; 9. Nineteenth Century Controversies relating to the protection of Artistic Property in France, by Frédéric Rideau; 10. Maps, Views and Ornament. Visualising Property in Art and Law: The Case of pre-modern France, by Katie Scott; 11. Breaking the Mould? The Radical Nature of the Fine Art Copyright Bill 1862, by Ronan Deazley; 12. ‘Neither bolt nor chain, iron safe nor private watchman, can prevent the theft of words’: The birth of the performing right in Britain, by Isabella Alexander; 13. The Return of the Commons: Copyright History as a Common Source, by Karl-Nikolaus Peifer; 14. The Significance of Copyright History for the Publishing History and Historians, by John Feather; 15. Metaphors of Intellectual Property, by William St Clair. The volume is a companion to the digital archive Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC): www.copyrighthistory.or

Perpetual copyright and constitutional property

Considers whether the UK rule that certain unpublished works remain in copyright until 2039 irrespective of their creation date should be revised. Examines the background to Australia's abolition of perpetual copyright, its impact on constitutional property protection, and its lessons for the UK. Suggests a model for UK copyright term reduction, assesses its compatibility with ECHR Protocol 1 art.1, and notes the relevance of publication right

The European Commission's public consultation on the review of EU copyright rules: a response by the CREATe Centre

No abstract available

Copyright & Risk: Scoping The Wellcome Digital Library Project

Copyright & Risk: Scoping the Wellcome Digital Library is a comprehensive case study which aims to assess the merits of the risk-managed approach to copyright clearance adopted by the Wellcome Library (WL) in the course of their pilot digitisation project Codebreakers: Makers of Modern Genetics

The European Commission's public consultation on the review of EU copyright rules: a response by the CREATe Centre

No abstract available