Authorship and fixation in copyright law : a comparative comment

[The present comment considers an issue that has received little discussion in the common law world: namely whether fixation and authorship are parts of the same creative act in relation to literary, dramatic and musical works. The importance of the question is that, if authorship does not entail fixation, it should logically be possible for a person independent of the author to reduce the work to material form for copyright purposes. This would significantly expand the range of works protected by copyright and would extend protection to those works which have never been fixed by their authors. The focus of the comment is Australian law, but its discussion is comparative, with particular attention given to UK law.]

Trends in co-authorship in the Australian Group of Eight law reviews

This paper examines trends in co-authorship in the Group of Eight (Go8) law reviews over the period 1975 to 2010. Several conclusions emerge. First, co-authorship occurs less in legal scholarship than in other disciplines. Second, co-authorship in Australian legal scholarship is less than in legal scholarship in the United States. Third, in terms of gender differences, males collaborate more than females. Fourth, academics at the leading law schools provide a disproportionate number of co-authored articles in the Go8 law reviews. Fifth, there is a positive correlation between co-authorship and publishing in the top Australian law journals. Between a quarter and a third of those who co-authored three or more articles in the Go8 law reviews were also those who published the most in the top Australian law journals over the period 1990–2010.

Collaborative authorship in film production: Walter Murch and film editing

Filmmaking is frequently cited as the most collaborative of all arts, yet for the most part, mainstream and scholarly literature have received films as the creative voice of just one artist – the director. The reasons for this are many: general ignorance of how films are made; the hijacking of film theory by literary theory, and the continuing popularity of the myth of the Romantic Artist as solitary genius are some of them. The case for collaborative authorship has gained momentum since the 1980s as studies on the production of individual films, actors, production companies and the history of the film industry as a whole have proliferated and drawn attention to the disparities between how films are perceived and how they are actually made. This article analyses collaboration in film production culture through examination of the role of the film editor. Concentrating specifically on the film/sound editor and mixer Walter Murch, it examines his role as a collaborative author in his early work with director Francis Ford Coppola and his later work with English director Anthony Minghella.

Critique and comment: Authorship and fixation in copyright law: A comparative comment

The present comment considers an issue that has received little discussion in the common law world: namely whether fixation and authorship are parts of the same creative act in relation to literary, dramatic and musical works. The importance of the question is that, if authorship does not entail fixation, it should logically be possible for a person independent of the author to reduce the work to material form for copyright purposes. This would significantly expand the range of works protected by copyright and would extend protection to those works which have never been fixed by their authors. The focus of the comment is Australian law, but its discussion is comparative, with particular attention given to UK law.

Facilitated communication and authorship: a systematic review

Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique whereby individuals with disabilities and communication impairments allegedly select letters by typing on a keyboard while receiving physical support, emotional encouragement, and other communication supports from facilitators. The validity of FC stands or falls on the question of who is authoring the typed messages--the individual with a disability or the facilitator. The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) formed an Ad Hoc Committee on FC and charged this committee to synthesize the evidence base related to this question in order to develop a position statement. The purpose of this paper is to report this synthesis of the extant peer-reviewed literature on the question of authorship in FC. A multi-faceted search was conducted including electronic database searches, ancestry searches, and contacting selected authors. The authors considered synopses of systematic reviews, and systematic reviews, which were supplemented with individual studies not included in any prior reviews. Additionally, documents submitted by the membership were screened for inclusion. The evidence was classified into articles that provided (a) quantitative experimental data related to the authorship of messages, (b) quantitative descriptive data on the output generated through FC without testing of authorship, (c) qualitative descriptive data on the output generated via FC without testing of authorship, and (d) anecdotal reports in which writers shared their perspectives on FC. Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship. Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity.

Medical and scientific authorship: a conflict between discipline rules and the law

When the results of medical collaborations are to be published, questions of authorship arise. Which members of the research team are to be acknowledged as authors of the paper? In what order are they to be acknowledged? Institutional rules will generally determine the attribution of authorship to members of the research team. However those rules are most unlikely to be consistent with the legal rules governing authorship and its attribution, most of which will apply regardless of a team’s adherence to institutional rules. This article examines the meaning of authorship in the medical community, and in the legal community under the copyright laws. It considers various formulations of the institutional rules governing authorship, as well as editorial practices. Through consideration of a hypothetical scenario, the consequences of the disparity between authorship norms in law and in medicine are elaborated.

Authorship, Collaboration, and Funding Trends in Implantology Literature: Analysis of Five Journals From 2005 to 2009

Purpose: To identify the trend of authorship in dental implant by exploring the prevalence of coauthored articles and to investigate the collaboration efforts, trends in funding involved in original articles, and their relationships. Materials: Articles published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Implant Dentistry, and Journal of Oral Implantology from 2005 to 2009 were reviewed. Nonoriginal articles were excluded. For each included articles, number of authors, collaboration efforts, and extramural funding were recorded. Descriptive and analytical statistics (alpha = 0.05), including logistic regression analysis and chi(2) test, were used. Results: From a total of 2085 articles, 1503 met the inclusion criteria. Publications with 5 or more authors increased over time (P = 0.813). The amount of collaboration among different disciplines, institutions, and countries all increased. The greatest increase of collaboration was seen among institutions (P = 0.09). Non-funding studies decreased over time (P = 0.031). There was a strong association between collaboration and funding for the manuscripts during the years studied (OR, 1.5). Conclusion: The number of authors per articles and collaborative studies increased over time in implant-related journals. Collaborative studies were more likely to be funded. (Implant Dent 2011;20:68-75)

'Initiators of Discursive Practices': Authorship, attribution, and intent in the debates between philosophes and anti-philosophes

This article focuses on the “social side” of pseudonymity—on how writers and readers compete to influence the critical destiny of a pseudonymous work. By analyzing pseudonymity and attribution in both the specific context of Voltaire’s 1760 staging of the play, Le café ou l’écossaise, and in larger debates in the emerging fields of anonymity, pseudonymity, and attribution studies, I hope to show how literary scholars at present can address the individuality of each pseudonymous case while not letting go of trans-historical, general problems of anonymous strategies. Voltaire’s use of multiple pseudonyms before and after releasing L’Ecossaise, a comédie sérieuse in which Voltaire attacks his enemy Elie-Cathérine Fréron, supports his philosophe friends at a crucial moment in history, and exemplifies his emerging taste for serious comedy and British drama calls into question traditional takes on pseudonymity, anonymity, and attribution by refusing to fit into the binary arguments of anonymous vs. attributed and authorial intent vs. the reader’s control.