Archives and Copyright: Risk and Reform

This paper considers the place of the archive sector within the copyright regime, and how copyright impacts upon the preservation, access to, and use of archival holdings. It begins with a critical assessment of the current parameters of the UK copyright regime as it applies to the work of archivists, including recommendations for reform that have followed in the wake of the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006-2010), the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2010-2011), the Consultation on Copyright (2011-12), as well as the government’s response thereto: Modernising Copyright (2012). It considers the various problems the copyright regime presents for archives undertaking mass digitisation projects as well as recent European and UK initiatives in this domain. It argues that the UK copyright regime, even when read in conjunction with current national and regional recommendations for reform, falls short of delivering a legal framework that would enable archivists to realise the full potential that comprehensive, universal online access to the country’s archival holdings would contribute to local and national democracy and accountability, to education, learning, and culture, and to the sense of identity and place for local people, communities and organisations. Ultimately, a case is made for the differential treatment of archives within the copyright regime – different, that is, from libraries and other related institutions operating within the cultural sector. The paper concludes with a policy recommendation that would greatly enhance the ability of archives to provide online access to their holdings, while at the same time safeguarding the economic interests of the authors and owners of copyright-protected work.

Copyright, Licences, and Statutory Fraud

In this article we explore the interplay between the law of copyright, contract, and statutory fraud within the digital environment, and in particular with respect to the business of commercial image licensing within the UK.

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.

Copyright and Parody:Taking Backward the Gowers Review

In 2006 the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property made a series of recommendations for reforming the intellectual property regime to better serve the interests of both consumers and industry. Among the proposed recommendations was that an exception for parody be introduced within the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. In January 2008 the Intellectual Property Office (the IPO) launched the first part of a two-stage consultation process on exceptions to copyright. As part of that consultation process, the IPO proposed a ‘fair dealing style exception’ for parody, and sought views on whether a new exception should be introduced as well as what form it might take. In December 2009 the IPO launched the second stage of this consultation process. The second consultation document rejected the case for a new parody exception. This article considers the place of parody within the copyright regime and the objections levelled against the introduction of an exception set out within the IPO's second consultation document. It invites the IPO to reconsider its decision not to recommend the introduction of a specific exception for parody within the UK.

Copyright Bites

Copyright Bites is a series of short videos that makes copyright law and policy easier to understand. With a distinctive visual vocabulary and style, the series explores the relationship between copyright and the public domain both of which are essential in fostering creativity and the creation of new work. It concerns how creators exploit and protect their work, as well as when it is okay to copy and re-use the work of others without having to ask for permission and without having to clear rights. Copyright is extremely important; but so too is the public domain.

The Statute of Anne and the Great Abridgement Swindle

There are many things that we know about the Statute of Anne with reasonable certitude. We know that it was prefaced by a period of sustained lobbying on the part of the book trade. We know that on January 11, 1710 a bill was introduced in the House of Commons in response to this lobbying and that, less than three months later, on April 5, 1710, the act that is now commonly referred to as the Statute of Anne was passed. And we also know that the Act that was passed differed in many significant respects from the bill as it was originally introduced to parliament.
There are, however, many things that we don't - or can't - know about the Statute of Anne. This article considers one of those things that we don't or can't know; the extent to which the Act was intended to regulate the unauthorised production of derivative versions of published work (in this case, abridgements) if, indeed, it was intended to regulate the production of such works at all.

The Game is On! The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair

The Game is On! is a series of short animated films that put copyright and creativity under the magnifying glass of Sherlock Holmes, providing a unique, research-led and open access resource for school-aged learners and other creative users of copyright. Drawing inspiration from well-known copyright and public domain work, as well as recent copyright litigation, these films provide a springboard for exploring key principles and ideas underpinning copyright law, creativity, and the limits of lawful appropriation and reuse.

Each episode comes accompanied by a number of related Case Files: supplementary educational materials aimed at suggesting points of discussion about copyright for teachers and students.

Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language

This book provides the reader with a critical insight into the history and theory of copyright within contemporary legal and cultural discourse. It exposes as myth the orthodox history of the development of copyright law in eighteenth-century Britain and explores the way in which that myth became entrenched throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To this historical analysis are added two theoretical approaches to copyright not otherwise found in mainstream contemporary texts. Rethinking Copyright introduces the reader to copyright through the prism of the public domain before considering how best to locate copyright within the parameters of traditional property discourse. Underpinning these various historical and theoretical strands, the book explores the constitutive power of legal writing and the place of rhetoric in framing and determining contemporary copyright policy and discourse.

What is the Point of Copyright History?:Reflections on Copyright at Common law in 1774 by H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui

Copyright history has long been a subject of intense and contested enquiry. Historical narratives about the early development of copyright were first prominently mobilised in eighteenth century British legal discourse, during the so-called Battle of the Booksellers between Scottish and London publishers. The two landmark copyright decisions of that time – Millar v. Taylor (1769) and Donaldson v. Becket (1774) – continue to provoke debate today. The orthodox reading of Millar and Donaldson presents copyright as a natural proprietary right at common law inherent in authors. Revisionist accounts dispute that traditional analysis. These conflicting perspectives have, once again, become the subject of critical scrutiny with the publication of Copyright at Common Law in 1774 by Prof Tomas Gomez-Arostegui in 2014, in the Connecticut Law Review ((2014) 47 Conn. L. Rev. 1) and as a CREATe Working Paper (No. 2014/16, 3 November 2014).

Taking Prof Gomez-Arostegui’s extraordinary work in this area as a point of departure, Dr Elena Cooper and Professor Ronan Deazley (then both academics at CREATe) organised an event, held at the University of Glasgow on 26th and 27th March 2015, to consider the interplay between copyright history and contemporary copyright policy. Is Donaldson still relevant, and, if so, why? What justificatory goals are served by historical investigation, and what might be learned from the history of the history of copyright? Does the study of copyright history still have any currency within an evidence-based policy context that is increasingly preoccupied with economic impact analysis?

This paper provides a lasting record of these discussions, including an editorial introduction, written comments by each of the panelists and Prof. Gomez-Arostegui and an edited transcript of the Symposium debate.

Commentary on Copyright Amendment Act 1842

The Act providing authors with the first post-mortem term of copyright protection. The term of copyright was to last either for the life of the author plus seven years after his or her death, or for forty-two years from the first publication of the same (whichever was longer). The commentary briefly discusses Thomas Noon Talfourd's repeated attempts to secure such legislation between 1837 and 1841, the opposition he experienced thereto (including Thomas Babington Macaulay's famous speech in the House of Commons on 5 February 1841 against extending the copyright term), and the success which Lord Mahon had in finally securing the Act in 1842.

Commentary on International Copyright Act 1886

The Act enabling the British government to become a signatory to the Berne Convention, which Convention came into force on 5 December 1887. The commentary describes the nature and extent of British participation in the three conferences which led to the signing of the Berne Convention, against a backdrop of several unsuccessful attempts to reform and consolidate the British copyright regime, the importance of pursuing meaningful Anglo-American copyright negotiations, and the significance of imperial-colonial copyright relations. The commentary also explores the extent to which the cause of Irish Nationalism, and the case for Home Rule, dominated the political landscape in early 1886, so explaining why the opportunity of adhering to the Berne Convention did not also lead to substantive reform of the domestic copyright regime at this time.

Display At Your Own Risk: An experimental exhibition of digital cultural heritage

Display At Your Own Risk is a research-led exhibition experiment concerned with the use and reuse of digital surrogates of public domain works of art produced by cultural heritage institutions of international repute. This publication is issued in conjunction with the open source exhibition, available at: displayatyourownrisk.org.

Display At Your Own Risk

Display At Your Own Risk (DAYOR) is a research-led exhibition experiment featuring digital surrogates of public domain works of art produced by cultural heritage institutions of international repute. The project includes a gallery exhibition, an open source version of that exhibition intended for public use, and two online publications: the Exhibition Catalogue, and a companion Metadata Book.

On the waterfront: neoliberal urbanism and the politics of public benefit

Dear Philip,

Thank you for adding your record to Pure. We notice that as of yet you have not uploaded your accepted manuscript for this publication.

As you may be aware HEFCE require that the accepted manuscripts of all journal articles and conference proceedings with an ISSN accepted from the 1st April 2016 are uploaded to Pure within 3 months of early online publication to ensure eligibility for the post 2014 REF.

The accepted manuscript is the final accepted version after changes from peer review have been incorporated. It is usually a Word or plain text file without publisher logos and prior to copy-editing and typesetting applied by the publisher.

If you have this version, I would be grateful if you could upload it to the record, selecting "Accepted author manuscript (post print)" from the document version drop down menu. If you have not done so already, please add your date of acceptance. Library staff will apply a copyright statement and any embargo required by the publisher.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information.

Kind regards,


Mark

Open Access Team

Efficacy and Safety of Radium-223 Dichloride in Symptomatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients With or Without Baseline Opioid Use From the Phase 3 ALSYMPCA Trial

Background: The phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial enrolled metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with or without baseline opioid use.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) versus placebo in ALSYMPCA patients by baseline opioid use.

Design, setting, and participants: Nine hundred and twenty one patients enrolled at 136 centers globally.

Intervention: Radium-223 (50 kBq/kg, intravenous injection) every 4 wk for six cycles or matching placebo, each plus best standard of care.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]), main secondary efficacy endpoints, and safety were evaluated by baseline opioid use. Additional analyses included time to first opioid use, time to first external beam radiation therapy for bone pain, and safety of concomitant external beam radiation therapy.

Results and limitations: At baseline, 408 (44%) patients had no pain and no analgesic use or mild pain with nonopioid therapy (World Health Organization ladder pain score 0–1 [nonopioid subgroup]), and 513 (56%) had moderate pain with occasional opioids or severe pain with regular daily opioids (World Health Organization ladder pain score 2–3 [opioid subgroup]). Radium-223 significantly prolonged OS versus placebo in nonopioid (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–0.93; p = 0.013) and opioid (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54–0.86; p = 0.001) subgroups, and significantly reduced risk of symptomatic skeletal events versus placebo, regardless of baseline opioid use (nonopioid subgroup: HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39–0.82, p = 0.002; opioid subgroup: HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53–0.98, p = 0.038). Time to first opioid use for bone pain was significantly delayed with radium-223 versus placebo (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.46–0.85,p = 0.002). Adverse event incidences were similar between opioid subgroups.

Conclusions: Radium-223 versus placebo significantly prolonged OS and reduced symptomatic skeletal event risk with a favorable safety profile in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with symptomatic bone metastases, regardless of baseline opioid use.

Patient summary: In this ALSYMPCA opioid subgroup analysis, baseline symptom levels did not appear to impact radium-223 dichloride efficacy or safety.