Abstract
The internationalised copyright norms established by treaties represent the compromises of competing political and economic interests. With harmonisation, copyright limitations and exceptions led to unprecedented debates. This is because common law and civil law countries have very different legal traditions in dealing with copyright limitations and exceptions. Developed and developing countries with diverse economies also need differing limits on copyrights in order to promote their particular educational institutions and academic research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights Proposal by Chile on the Analysis of Exceptions and Limitations SCCR/13/5 (2005). The proposal requested the WIPO Standing Committee to investigate national models of copyright limitations and exceptions and urged it to establish an agreement on limitations and exceptions for public interest. WIPO Provisional Committee Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda PCDA/1/2 (2006). In this proposal Chile requested WIPO to appraise the importance of the public domain where users can use works without copyright restrictions. Chile also requested the WIPO to investigate such complementary measures as open licensing systems that can stimulate creativity.
- 3.
Gervais (2002), p. 936.
- 4.
- 5.
World Intellectual Property Organization and Sirinelli (1999), p. 3.
- 6.
Some scholars consider fair use as a defence against copyright infringements, while others regard it as a privilege granted to users, see Meeropol v Nizer 560 F 2d 1061 1068 (2nd Cir 1977). In Canada, certain uses of copyrighted works are users’ rights; see CCH Canadian Ltd. v Law Society of Upper Canada 2004 SCC 13 para 48. See also Vaver (2000), p. 170. Some scholars consider fair dealing is a right of the public, see Laddie et al. (2000), p. 749. This study considers fair use a defence against copyright infringements. Simply considering fair use a user’s right is impractical and weakens or even disguises the current imbalance between copyright owners and users. For example, although Canadian copyright law generally favours a users’ rights approach, the Courts do not always follow this approach, Vaver Copyright Law 171 cited a case in which the Court interpreted exceptions narrowly: Cie générale des éstablissements Michelin/Michelin & Cie v CAW Canada (1996) 71 CPR (3d) 348 at 381 (Fed. TD) [Michelin].
- 7.
The word ‘limit’ is used in Germany and Spain, while ‘limitation’ is used in Sweden, Greece and the United States. ‘Restriction’ is used in Switzerland, and ‘free use’ is used in Portugal. See WIPO and Sirinelli (1999), p. 2.
- 8.
Miller and Davis (1990), p. 349.
- 9.
Burrell and Coleman (2005), p. 9.
- 10.
- 11.
Rawls (1971), p. 28 and Bedau (1963), pp. 284–305, argues that Bentham’s utilitarian theory is unable to account for moral rights that are at the heart of justice theory; Parekh (1970), pp. 478–495 presented a similar argument; Goldworth (1969), pp. 315–321 and Goldworth (1987), pp. 67–68, argues Bentham’s theory cannot accommodate the principles of distributive justice and individual entitlements.
- 12.
Rawls (1971), p. 303.
- 13.
Drahos (1996), p. 177.
- 14.
Id 179–180.
- 15.
- 16.
Sun (2011), p. 125.
- 17.
- 18.
Coase (1960), p. 3.
- 19.
It is debatable whether private use should be fair use in a digital environment anymore; see Ginsburg and Gaubiac (1998), pp. 149–155.
- 20.
Id 149.
- 21.
Gordon (1982), p. 1600.
- 22.
- 23.
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (2001) OJ L 167/10.
- 24.
Burrell and Coleman (2005), pp. 2–3.
- 25.
Fair dealing exempts infringements of copyright for the purposes of news reporting, criticism and review. Such activities are a part of the right of freedom of expression, a basic human right that is found in Art 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No 11, Rome, 4.XI. 1950. Fair dealing operates in judicial activities, see Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v Yelland [2000] 3 WLR 215 (CA); Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd. [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2002] ECDR 32337; Pro Sieben AG v Carlton Television Ltd. [1999] 1 WLR 605.
- 26.
May (2003), p. 2.
- 27.
Burrell and Coleman (2005), pp. 79–80.
- 28.
Id 79–80.
- 29.
Lester and Mitchell (1989), p. 160.
- 30.
Ss 32–36 of CDPA 1988.
- 31.
S 29.
- 32.
Ss 28–30.
- 33.
S 32 of CDPA 1988.
- 34.
S 33.
- 35.
S 34.
- 36.
S 35.
- 37.
S 36.
- 38.
S 36A.
- 39.
S 36(2).
- 40.
S 36(4).
- 41.
S 130. It requires the Tribunal to consider:
(a) the extent to which published editions of the works in question are otherwise available, (b) the proportion of the work to be copied, and (c) the nature of the use to which the copies are likely to be put.
- 42.
S 174(1) of CDPA 1988.
- 43.
It is suggested that some types of institutions of higher education would be included, see Lester and Mitchell (1989), p. 161.
- 44.
Burrell and Coleman (2005), pp. 78–79 and 162–163.
- 45.
Lester and Mitchell (1989), p. 165.
- 46.
The Royal Society (2003) and Hilty (2007), p. 322.
- 47.
(1975) 133 CLR 1.
- 48.
In particular, in CBS Songs Ltd. v Amstrad Plc [1988] RPC 567 held ‘it is thought that UK courts would reach a similar conclusion to that in Moorhouse’, though the House of Lords appeared to take a very different approach to the question of authorisation.
- 49.
CCH Canadian Ltd. v Law Society of Upper Canada 2004 SCC 13 para 51.
- 50.
Id para 41.
- 51.
The idea/expression dichotomy means copyright only protects expressions fixed in certain forms.
- 52.
See Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc. 114 S Ct 1164 (1994) 1170; Harper & Row Publishers v Nation Enterprises 471 US 539 (1985) 549; Wright v Warner Books Inc. 953 F 2d 731 (2nd Cir 1991) 740; HR Rep No 94-1476 94th Cong 2nd Sess 65–66 (1976) (‘no generally applicable definition [of fair use] is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts’).
- 53.
Gordon (2002), pp. 149–192.
- 54.
- 55.
Brown (1985), pp. 579–609.
- 56.
Akester (2006), pp. 16–33.
- 57.
464 US 417 (1984).
- 58.
Time-shifting is to record a television show and then to store it in order to view the show at a time more convenient to the consumer.
- 59.
American Geophysical Union v Texaco Inc. 802 F Supp 1 (SDNY 1992); Re American Geophysical Union v Texaco Inc 37 F 3d 881 (2nd Cir 1994) (Texaco).
- 60.
American Geophysical Union v Texaco Inc. 37 F 3d 881 (2nd Cir 1994) 5–12. As the dissent points out, however, only a tiny fraction of research actually involves laboratory experiments. Jacobs J, dissenting at 4–10.
- 61.
The Copyright Crash Course ‘Professional Fair Use after Texaco’ University of Texas Libraries.
- 62.
Id.
- 63.
Id.
- 64.
Thomas (1992). This Memorandum was submitted to the Association of Research Libraries and the Coalition for Networked Information which described and assessed the impact of this decision on library community.
- 65.
Thomas et al. ‘Memorandum’, cited HR Rep 1476, 94th Cong, 2nd Sess (1976).
- 66.
Thomas et al. ‘Memorandum’. See also ‘Texaco’ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/texaco/settlement.html (accessed 17-07-2016) and Crews (1992).
- 67.
284 F 3d 1091.
- 68.
P2P architecture means individuals can identify and transfer files from other individuals. In other words, it enables peers to obtain files from other peers. Although Napster’s service is not what one might call complete P2P architecture because there is a centralised database to provide information to on-line users, the effect is peer to peer.
- 69.
Lessig gives an example of some kinds of music that have had never received copyright protection. He points out ‘music that has never existed in the history of music production’ as:
The important factor is not that a user can get Madonna’s lasted songs for free; it is that one can find (emphasis added by the author) a recording of New Orleans jazz drummer Jason Marsalis’ band play “There’s a Thing Called Rhythm”.
Lessig (2001), p. 131.
- 70.
Id 196.
- 71.
The Authors Guild Inc., et al. v. Google, Inc. October 16, 2015 (2d Circuit).
- 72.
Page 3 of the judgment.
- 73.
https://www.authorsguild.org/where-we-stand/authors-guild-v-google/ (accessed 27/08/2017).
- 74.
Samuelson (2015), p. 854.
- 75.
Id 853.
- 76.
Travis (2015), p. 724.
- 77.
Art 9(2) of the Berne Convention 1986; Heide (1999), pp. 105–109.
- 78.
WIPO and Sirinelli (1999), p. 42.
- 79.
World Intellectual Property Organization and Ricketson (2003), pp. 17–18 and Ricketson (1987), p. 482.
- 80.
- 81.
World Trade Organization United States—Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Report of the Panel (2000) WT/DS160/R 33.
- 82.
Ibid.
- 83.
Id 33–34.
- 84.
- 85.
Koelman (2006), p. 409.
- 86.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), p. 18.
- 87.
American Geophysical Union v Texaco Inc. 37 F 3d 881 (2nd Cir 1994) 898–899. Although the majority held that photocopying journal articles without a licence infringed copyright, the dissenting opinion was:
… there is no normal market in photocopy licenses, and no real consensus among publishers that there ought to be one
at 904.
- 88.
WTO Panel Decision 48. The precedent value of the WTO Panel’s decision is limited as it binds only the parties to the legal proceedings. Neither other Member States nor domestic courts are bound by the decision for even a later Panel would arguably not be legally obliged to follow the decision. Oliver (2001–2002), pp. 132–133.
- 89.
WTO Panel Decision 48.
- 90.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), p. 19.
- 91.
Arts 2(4) & 2bis (1) of the Berne Convention.
- 92.
Art 10(1).
- 93.
Art 10(2).
- 94.
Arts 10bis (1) & (2).
- 95.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), p. 20.
- 96.
Yoo argues from an economics perspective that a transformative use of a copyrighted work could create a work to compete with the original one. In other words, a transformative work is an indirect substitution of the original one. A ‘narrow’ copyright regime that generously allows transformative uses would increase users’ entry to a particular type of works. Moreover, such a narrow copyright regime does not necessarily reduce right holders’ incentive to create if two conditions are met. First, copyright owners can profit from many different types of copyrights. Second, the copyright protection is strong enough for right owners to profit. See Yoo (2005), pp. 103–119. See also Yoo (2004), pp. 212–280.
- 97.
Geiger et al. (2008), p. 491.
- 98.
World Intellectual Property Organization Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm, June 11 to July 14, 1967 (The Stockholm Conference Records) vol I & II (Geneva: WIPO, 1971) Preparatory Doc S/1 71, p. 113.
- 99.
- 100.
Hugenholtz and Okediji (2008).
- 101.
For example, D H Lawrence’s works have been banned in the UK for many years because they were considered to be pornography.
- 102.
Ulmer stated that:
… a rather large number of copies for use in industrial undertakings … may not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author, provided that, according to national legislation, an equitable remuneration is paid. If a small number of copies is made, photocopying may be permitted without payment, particularly for individual or scientific use.
See Stockholm Conference Records II 1145–1146.
- 103.
Senftleben (2004), pp. 219–220.
- 104.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), p. 12.
- 105.
Stockholm Conference Records II 1148.
- 106.
1148.
- 107.
Art 13(1) of the Berne Convention.
- 108.
Art 11bis (2).
- 109.
Senftleben (2004), pp. 198–201.
- 110.
Art 2 of the Protocol Regarding Developing Countries to the Berne Convention of 1967 (the Protocol).
- 111.
Art 1 of the Protocol.
- 112.
Appendix to the Berne Convention.
- 113.
For the history’s Protocol and Appendix, see Ricketson Berne Convention ch 11.
- 114.
Okediji (2005), pp. 162–168.
- 115.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), p. 55.
- 116.
Hugenholtz and Okediji (2008), p. 17 & accompanying n 49.
- 117.
Art 11 of the TRIPS Agreement.
- 118.
Agreed statement concerning Article 10 of the WCT.
- 119.
Art 6 of the WCT.
- 120.
Art 7.
- 121.
Arts 8 & 10(2).
- 122.
World Intellectual Property Organization Seminar for Asia and the Pacific Region on the Internet and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (1998) WIPO/INT/SIN/98/4 (1998), pp. 11–12.
- 123.
World Intellectual Property Organization Records of the Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions volume I & II (1996) CRNR/DC/2 (1996), p. 188.
- 124.
Diplomatic Conference Records II 672.
- 125.
Vinje (1997), p. 231.
- 126.
- 127.
Diplomatic Conference Records II 670.
- 128.
Agreed statement concerning Article 1(4) of the WCT that requires Contracting Parties to comply with Articles 1 to 21 and the Appendix of the Berne Convention. The statement reads:
Agreed statements concerning Article 1(4): The reproduction right, as set out in Article 9 of the Berne Convention, and the exceptions permitted thereunder, fully apply in the digital environment, in particular to the use of works in digital form. It is understood that the storage of a protected work in digital form in an electronic medium constitutes a reproduction within the meaning of Article 9 of the Berne Convention.
- 129.
Art 31 (2) (a) of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that when an interpretation of a treaty is in need, in addition to the text of the treaty, any agreement relating to the treaty which is made between all parties should be taken into consideration.
- 130.
Diplomatic Conference Records II 670.
- 131.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), pp. 56–57, citing Diplomatic Conference Records I 189 and II 628 and 674–675.
- 132.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), p. 57.
- 133.
Above 57–60, discusses the legal effect of the agreed statements under the guidance of the Vienna Convention. Ficsor argued that an agreed statement does not need unanimity to be effective because it is not a ‘treaty’ under Article 31(2)(a) of the Vienna Convention. On the contrary, Sinclair argues just the opposite writing that unanimity is necessary when referring to the Vienna Convention’s other articles.
- 134.
They enjoy a number rights, for example, a right of broadcasting and rebroadcasting, a right of communication to the public, a right of reproduction of phonograms and a right of fixing performances to tangible media.
- 135.
Art 15 of the Rome Convention provides that exceptions could be granted for (a) private use; (b) use of short excerpts in connection with the reporting of current events; (c) ephemeral fixation by a broadcasting organisation by means of its own facilities and for its own broadcasts; (d) use solely for the purposes of teaching or scientific research.
- 136.
Another argument is that Art 15(1) of the Rome Convention is not mandatory. Therefore, Art 16(1) does not annul the obligations the Rome Convention has imposed. See WIPO and Ricketson (2003), p. 65.
- 137.
Ayoob (2010), p. 179.
- 138.
McMains (2009), pp. 1246–1256. The Free Software Foundation is concerned ACTA would threaten free software, see http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/. The Wellington Declaration also states that copyright exceptions and limitations should be properly addressed to balance copyright protection with the fundamental purposes of copyright, see PublicACTA ‘The Wellington Declaration’ (2016).
- 139.
Geist (2016) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4829/125 (accessed 27-08-2017) and M Geist ‘New ACTA Leaks: Criminal Enforcement, Institutional Issues, and International Cooperation’ (27-07-2016) Michael Geist http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4886/125/ (accessed 27-08-2017).
- 140.
- 141.
Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.
- 142.
Fergusson et al. (2015).
- 143.
Electronic Frontier Foundation ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’ by at https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp. These include obligations for countries to expand copyright terms, to adopt DMCA-like provisions, to impose greater liability on Internet intermediaries and to adopt heavy criminal sanctions.
- 144.
- 145.
Joshua Rich, partner at Chicago-based IP law firm McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, in an interview by Inside Counsel, ‘U.S. Withdrawal from TPP Impact on Intellectual Property’ http://www.insidecounsel.com/2017/03/03/us-withdrawal-from-tpp-impact-on-intellectual-prop.
- 146.
Art 8 s 5 ch 2 of the ACTA. Also see art 18.15 of TPP that recognises the importance of ‘a rich and accessible public domain’.
- 147.
Drahos (2016), p. 1.
- 148.
Recital 14 of the Information Society Directive.
- 149.
Recital 19.
- 150.
Recital 14.
- 151.
Art 53(3) Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights of 1965 Federal Law Gazette Part I page 1273 (as amended in 2008).
- 152.
S 13(1) of the Copyright Act of 1995 Act No 395 of June 14, 1995 amended by Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2006 Consolidated Act No. 763 of 2006 (WIPO English version).
- 153.
S 50.
- 154.
For example, Art 53(3) of the German Copyright Law of 1965 and Art 40(1A) of the Australia Copyright Act of 1968.
- 155.
Art 5(3)(a) of the Information Society Directive.
- 156.
See above para 3 5 1 1.
- 157.
Hugenholtz and Okediji (2008), p. 12.
- 158.
Senftleben (2004), p. 256.
- 159.
Commission of the European Communities.
COM (2008) 466/3, pp. 19–20. Gowers (2006) Recommendation 11.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/0118404830/0118404830.pdf (accessed 27-07-2016).
Hugenholtz and Senftleben (2011), p. 4.
- 160.
S 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
- 161.
Beebe (2006).
- 162.
11.
- 163.
Fisher (1988), p. 1783.
- 164.
Beebe (2006), p. 10.
- 165.
Ibid.
- 166.
Beebe (2006), p. 11.
- 167.
Id 12.
- 168.
Id 12.
- 169.
Id 13–14.
- 170.
Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc. 510 US 569 (1994) 580 n 12. The Court upheld a parody work as a fair use because it was a transformative use. The transformative nature of the use outweighed commercial consideration.
- 171.
See, eg, Leibovitz v Paramount Pictures Corp 137 F 3d 109 (2nd Cir 1998) 113. Newman J wrote:
The Court’s emphasis on an aggregate weighing of all four fair use factors represented a modification of the Court’s earlier view that the fourth factor, effect on the potential market for, or value of, the original, was “the single most important element of fair use”.
Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc. 510 US 569 (1994) 590 n 21, the Court’s reference to the fourth factor was that
the importance of this factor will vary, not only with the amount of harm, but also with the relative strength of the showing on the other factors.
- 172.
Beebe (2006), pp. 10–11.
- 173.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), pp. 68–69.
- 174.
Art 5(2)(e) of the Information Society Directive.
- 175.
Recital 35 provides that:
In cases where rightholders have already received payment in some other form, for instance as part of a licence fee, no specific or separate payment may be due. The level of fair compensation should take full account of the degree of use of technological protection measures referred to in this Directive. In certain situations where the prejudice to the rightholder would be minimal, no obligation for payment may arise.
When social institutions do private copying and reproduce broadcasts they should pay royalties, see Arts 2(a), (b) & (e) of the Information Society Directive.
- 176.
WIPO and Sirinelli (1999), p. 22.
- 177.
See above para 3 2.
- 178.
WIPO and Sirinelli (1999), pp. 11–12.
- 179.
Id 6.
- 180.
WIPO and Ricketson (2003), p. 65.
- 181.
Gutteridge (1946), pp. 155–157.
- 182.
Goldman (2007), p. 47.
- 183.
van Creveld (1999), p. 385.
- 184.
Id 70–74.
- 185.
Gutteridge (1946), p. 160.
- 186.
Ibid.
- 187.
Ibid.
- 188.
Goldman (2007), pp. 1–21.
- 189.
Id 292–295.
- 190.
Id 292.
- 191.
Gutteridge (1946), p. 160.
- 192.
Arts 40–43 of the Copyright Act of 1968.
- 193.
Davison et al. (2008).
- 194.
Copyright Amendment Act 2006, No 158.
- 195.
Art 200AB of the Copyright Act of 1968.
- 196.
S 28. For more details, see http://www.unimelb.edu.au/copyright/information/amendments2006.html
- 197.
See Copyright Act of 1968 Act No. 63 of 1968 http://www.unimelb.edu.au/copyright/information/amendments2006.html
- 198.
Id.
- 199.
S 40(2).
- 200.
S 200AB provides that a copyright in a work is not infringed by a use of the work if the use is a special case prescribed by the Copyright Act and the use is for libraries, educational institutions and the disabled. The use should neither conflict with a normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner.
- 201.
S 200AB (7).
- 202.
WIPO and Sirinelli (1999), p. 41.
- 203.
See above para 3 2.
- 204.
Hugenholtz and Okediji (2008), pp. 42–43.
- 205.
Fitzpatrick (2003), p. 222.
- 206.
Ibid.
- 207.
Ibid.
- 208.
Id 224.
References
Akester P (2006) The political dimension of the digital challenge — copyright and free speech restrictions in the digital age. Intellect Prop Q 1:16
Anderson N (09-11-2009) The ACTA Internet Provisions: DMCA Goes Worldwide. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/the-acta-internet-provisions-dmca-goes-worldwide.ars. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Ayoob E (2010) Recent development: the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 28:175
Bedau HA (1963) Justice and classical utilitarianism. In: Friedrich CJ, Chapman JW (eds) Nomos, vol 6. Atherton Press, New York
Beebe B (2006) An empirical study of the U.S. copyright fair use cases, 1978–2005. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/ipsc/papers2/Beebe.pdf 10. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Brennan TJ (1994) Markets, information, and benevolence. Econ Philos 10(2):151
Brown RS (1985) Eligibility for copyright protection: a search for principled standards. Minn Law Rev 70:579
Burrell R, Coleman A (2005) Copyright exceptions: the digital impact. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1
Commission of the European Communities Copyright in the Knowledge Economy Green Paper of the Commission of the European Communities Brussels COM (2008) 466/3Commission on Intellectual Property Rights Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. CIPR, London, September 2002
Crews KD, Copyright law, libraries, and universities: overview, recent developments, and future issues (1992) working paper presented to Association of Research Libraries, October 1992, http://cool.conservation-us.org/bytopic/intprop/crews.html. Assessed 27 Aug 2017
Crocker L (1977) Equality, solidarity, and Rowls’ Maximin. Philos Public Aff 6(3):262
Davison MJ, Monotti AL, Wiseman L (2008) Australian intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Denicola RC (1979) Copyright and free speech: constitutional limitations on the protection of expression. Calif Law Rev 67(2):289
Drahos P (1996) A philosophy of intellectual property. Dartmouth Publishing Company, Dartmouth
Drahos P (2016) China, the TPP and intellectual property. IIC 47:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-015-0432-y
Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”, https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Fergusson IF, McMinimy MA, Williams BR (2015) The trans-Pacific partnership (TPP): in brief (CRS report R44278). Congressional Research Service, Washington
Ficsor M (2002) The law of copyright and the internet: the 1996 WIPO treaties, their interpretation and implementation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Finger JM (1999) The WTO’s special burden on less developed countries. Cato J 19:425
Fitzpatrick SA (2003) Prospects of further copyright harmonisation. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 25(5):215
Fisher WW III (1988) Reconstructing the fair use doctrine. Harv Law Rev 101:1659
Fleischacker S (2004) A short history of distributive justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Geiger C, Griffiths J, Hilty RM (2008) Towards a balanced interpretation of the ‘Three-step Test’ in copyright law. Eur Intellect Prop Rev:489
Gervais DJ (2002) The internationalization of intellectual property: new challenges from the very old and the very new. Fordham Intell Prop Media Entertain Law J 12(4):929
Gervais DJ (2005) Towards a new core international copyright norm: the reverse three-step test. Marquette Intell Prop Law Rev 9:1
Ginsburg JC (2001) Toward supranational copyright law? The WTO panel decision and the “Three-step test” for copyright exceptions. Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur 187:2
Ginsburg JC, Gaubiac Y (1998) Private copying in the digital environment. In: Kabel JJC, Mom GJHM (eds) Intellectual property and information law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Goldman DB (2007) Globalisation and the western legal tradition: recurring patterns of law and authority. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Goldworth A (1969) The meaning of Bentham’s greatest happiness principle. J Hist Philos 7:315
Goldworth A (1987) The sympathetic sanction and sinister interest in Bentham’s utilitarianism. Hist Philos Q 4(1):67
Gordon WJ (1982) Fair use as market failure: a structural and economic analysis of the Betamax case and its predecessors. Columbia Law Rev 82(8):1600
Gordon WJ (2002) Excuse and justification in the law of fair use: commodification and market perspectives. In: Elkin-Koren N, Netanel N (eds) The commodification of information. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Gowers A (2006) Gowers review of intellectual property. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Norwich. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/0118404830/0118404830.pdf (Accessed 27 Aug 2017)
Gutteridge HC (1946) Comparative law: an introduction to the comparative method of legal study & research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Heide T (1999) The Berne three-step test and the proposed copyright directive. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 21:105
Hilty R (2007) Copyright law and scientific research. In: Torresmans PL (ed) Copyright law: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
https://www.authorsguild.org/where-we-stand/authors-guild-v-google/ (Accessed 27 Aug 2017)
Hugenholtz PB, Okediji RL, Conceiving an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright: Final Report (06-03-2008) report of a workshop held at the Cardozo School of Law in New York on 16-18 December 2007 http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/hugenholtz/finalreport2008.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Hugenholtz PB, Senftleben MRF (2011) Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities. Institute for Information Law, Amsterdam
Joshua Rich, “U.S. Withdrawal from TPP Impact on Intellectual Property”, http://www.insidecounsel.com/2017/03/03/us-withdrawal-from-tpp-impact-on-intellectual-prop. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Koelman KJ (2006) Fixing the three step test. Eur Intellect Prop Rev:407
Laddie H, Prescott P, Vitoria M, Speck A, Lane L (2000) The modern law of copyright and designs, vol 1, 3rd edn. Butterworths, London
Landes WM, Posner RA (2003) The economic structure of intellectual property law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Lessig L (2001) The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world. Random House, New York
Lester D, Mitchell P (1989) Joynson-Hicks on UK copyright law. Sweet & Maxwell, London
M Geist “Major ACTA Leak: Internet and Civil Enforcement Chapters with Country Positions” (27-08-2017) Michael Geist http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4829/125. Accessed 27Aug 2017
Geist M “New ACTA Leaks: Criminal Enforcement, Institutional Issues, and International Cooperation” (Accessed 27-08-2017) Michael Geist http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4886/125/. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
May C (2003) Why IPRs are a global political issue. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 25(1):1
McMains CR (2009) The proposed anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA): two tales of a treaty. Houston Law Rev 46:1235
Miller R, Davis MH (1990) Intellectual property: patents, trademarks, and copyright in a nutshell, 2nd edn. West/Wadsworth, St. Paul
Netanel NW (1998) Asserting Copyright’s democratic principles in the global arena. Vanderbilt Law Rev 51(2):217
Nordemann W, Vinck K, Hertin PW, Meyer G, Nordemann W (1990) International copyright and neighboring rights law: commentary with special emphasis on the European Community. Wiley VCH, Weinheim
Okediji RL (2005) Sustainable access to copyrighted digital information works in developing countries. In: Maskus KE, Reichman JH (eds) International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge
Oliver J (2001–2002) Copyright in the WTO: the panel decision on the three-step test. Columbia J Law Arts 25:119
Parekh B (1970) Bentham’s theory of equality. Pol Stud 18(4):478
Pegoraro R (15-11-2009) Copyright Overreach Goes on World Tour. The Washington Post. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Rahmatian A (2005) Copyright and commodification. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 27(10):371
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Reinbothe J, von Lewinski S (2002) The WIPO treaties 1996: the WIPO copyright treaty and the WIPO performances and phonograms treaty: commentary and legal analysis. Butterworths Canada, Markham
Ricketson S (1987) The Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works: 1886–1986. Kluwer Law International, London
Ryan M (2000) Cyberspace as public space: a public trust paradigm for copyright in a digital world. Oreg Law Rev 79:647
Samuelson P (2008) Unbundling fair uses. Fordham Law Rev 77:2537
Samuelson P (2015) Possible futures of fair use. Wash Law Rev 90:815
Sell S (2003) Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Senftleben M (2004) In: Hugenholtz B (ed) Copyright, limitations and the three-step test: an analysis of the three-step test in international and EC copyright law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Simpson BP (2005) Markets don’t fail! Lexington Books, Lanham
Sun HC (2011) Fair use as a collective user right. N C Law Rev 90(125):125
“Texaco”. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/texaco/settlement.html. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
The Copyright Crash Course “Professional Fair Use after Texaco” University of Texas Libraries. http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/tex2.html. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
“The United States Officially Withdraws from the Trans-Pacific Partnership”., https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/january/US-Withdraws-From-TPP. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
The Free Software Foundation, http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/
The Royal Society “Keeping Science Open: the Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science” (14-4-2003) The Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2003/keeping-science-open. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
The Wellington Declaration (27-07-2016), http://acta.net.nz/the-wellington-declaration. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
RT Thomas, SN Weller & Squire, Sanders & Dempsey “Summary of Texaco Decision: Memorandum” (9-9-1992) Stanford University Libraries: Copyright & Fair Use. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/texaco/summary-of-decision/. Accessed 27 Aug 2017
Travis H (2015) Free speech institutions and fair use: a new agenda for copyright reform. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 33:673
van Creveld M (1999) The rise and decline of the state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Vaver D (2000) Copyright law. Irwin Law, Toronto
Vinje TC (1997) The new WIPO copyright treaty: a happy result in Geneva. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 19:230
WIPO Provisional Committee Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda PCDA/1/2 (2006)
WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights Proposal by Chile on the Analysis of Exceptions and Limitations SCCR/13/5 (2005)
World Intellectual Property Organization, Bogsch A (1978) WIPO guide to the Berne convention. WIPO, Geneva
World Intellectual Property Organization Records of the Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions volume I & II (1996) CRNR/DC/2 (1996)
World Intellectual Property Organization Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm, June 11 to July 14, 1967 (The Stockholm Conference Records) vol I & II (WIPO, Geneva 1971) Preparatory Doc S/1
World Intellectual Property Organization & S Ricketson, Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (04-05-2003) SCCR/9/7 17-18
World Intellectual Property Organization Seminar for Asia and the Pacific Region on the Internet and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (1998) WIPO/INT/SIN/98/4
World Intellectual Property Organization & P Sirinelli, Exceptions and Limits to Copyright and Neighboring Rights (3-12-1999) WCT WPPT/IMP/1
World Trade Organization United States — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Report of the Panel (2000) WT/DS160/R 33
Yoo CS (2004) Copyright and product differentiation. N Y Univ Law Rev 79:212
Yoo CS (2005) Towards a differentiated products theory of copyright. In: Takeyama LN, Gordon WJ, Towse R (eds) Developments in the economics of copyright: research and analysis. Elgar Edward, Cheltenham
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wang, J. (2018). Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Education and Research: Unity in Diversity. In: Conceptualizing Copyright Exceptions in China and South Africa. China-EU Law Series, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71831-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71831-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71830-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71831-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)