Why the not-for-profit cultural sector needs tailor-made copyright safe harbours



File 20180205 19952 1xsusrq.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
There are many ways the not-for-profit GLAM sector – public galleries, libraries, archives and museums – could be protected from potential copyright damages claims.
from http://www.shutterstock.com, CC BY-ND

Graeme Austin, Victoria University of Wellington and Emily Hudson, King’s College London

A bill before the Australian Parliament will extend immunities from copyright infringement currently enjoyed by internet service providers (ISPs) to cultural institutions, educational institutions, and organisations assisting people with disabilities.

These immunities are known as “safe harbours”. They can be a useful policy tool. They help ensure that exposure to copyright liability doesn’t inhibit socially or economically useful activity such as developing internet infrastructure.

We argue that copyright issues for not-for-profit organisations differ from those affecting ISPs and their subscribers. Rather than expanding existing safe harbours, policy makers should tailor the concept to the needs of the cultural sector.




Read more:
Instagram is changing the way we experience art, and that’s a good thing


How the existing safe harbours work

Safe harbours have been justified as a quid pro quo to encourage investment in Internet infrastructure. ISPs were concerned that they could themselves be liable for their customers’ copyright infringements. Investment in internet technologies might have been inhibited by the risk of potentially enormous damages claims.

Currently, Australian safe harbours apply only to telecommunications providers such as Telstra and Optus. They shelter ISPs against monetary awards for copyright infringement for actions such as transmission and caching, and storage of infringing material uploaded by subscribers. The immunities don’t apply when the ISP is itself responsible for storing infringing material.

Immunity can also be lost when an ISP fails to meet key conditions, such as removing infringing material once the ISP knows about it.

Fresh thinking on safe habours

At first blush the bill makes sense. The institutions mentioned in the Copyright Amendment (Services Providers) Bill 2017 (Cth) do important work. A not-for-profit running a website that allows the uploading of material suitable for people suffering from visual disabilities, for instance, deserves immunity from copyright damages claims if some of that material turns out to be infringing.

However, the Australian bill should also prompt us to revisit the safe harbour concept itself. A safe harbour reflects a policy that certain activities are sufficiently important that they should not be inhibited by the risk of copyright proceedings. Rather than extending existing safe harbours to other institutions, we should look at how such institutions are currently inhibited by exposure to copyright claims, and how the law might be adapted.

There are many ways we can craft copyright immunities for the not-for-profit GLAM sector: public galleries, libraries, archives and museums. GLAM institutions currently enjoy some exemptions from copyright infringement, and there have been calls for a broader fair use or fair dealing defence.

Specific shelter for GLAM sector

Another possibility would be a safe harbour that is tailor-made for the GLAM sector.

The reforms in the Australian bill would apply only where the infringing activity is undertaken by patrons. But unlike ISPs, GLAM institutions need the greatest protection for the things they do themselves. We value museums, for example, for the expert work of their own curators and collection managers, not because they sometimes allow other people to upload material to their websites.

GLAM organisations use digital technologies in innovative ways. They put their collections online, link to the online collections of other institutions, and create vast repositories of metadata about collection items. Some exhibitions are digitally curated, with links to related objects and information, often located on remote sites. While some GLAM organisations allow third parties to post material to their websites, that’s not their core work.

Anyone working in the GLAM sector will tell you how copyright concerns limit their work. Institutions also fear the reputational damage of allegations that they disregard copyright. But so long as GLAM organisations act responsibly, these valuable contributions to cultural life should not be unduly inhibited by risks of copyright liability.

Striking a balance

Most GLAM sector organisations are responsible about copyright. If GLAM institutions use some material without copyright permissions, this is typically of limited commercial significance – quite unlike the commercially valuable material that is transmitted by ISP subscribers every second.

A fit-for-purpose GLAM safe harbour could encourage responsible behaviour while ensuring that the GLAM sector’s work is less impeded by risks of copyright claims. Unlike the ISP scheme, a GLAM safe harbour would not be limited to patrons’ activities. It might be conditioned on good faith efforts to raise copyright awareness among staff, including regular training. In the digital context, it might have a take down requirement.

The ConversationIn summary, the copyright issues for publicly funded not-for-profits doing valuable social work are not the same as those affecting ISPs and their subscribers. Lumping them together in the same safe harbour avoids more nuanced thinking about their relative social value and the different risks each poses for those who rely on copyright protections for their livelihood.

Graeme Austin, Professor of Law, Victoria University of Wellington and Emily Hudson, Senior Lecturer in Law, King’s College London

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Not My Review: Empirium (Book 1) – Furyborn, by Claire Legrand


Man Booker Prize: Kick the Yanks Out


The link below is to an article that takes a look at the call for US authors to not be included in the Man Booker Prize.

For more visit:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/02/publishers-call-on-man-booker-prize-to-drop-american-authors

Amazon and Audible on Audiobooks


The link below is to an article that looks at Amazon and Audible on there strategy for audiobooks into the future.

For more visit:
http://observer.com/2018/02/amazon-audible-audiobooks-changes-book-publishing/

Essays On Air: Why grown-ups still need fairy tales


File 20180130 170419 1952mqf.png?ixlib=rb 1.1
Fairy tales are extremely moral in their demarcation between good and evil, right and wrong.
Marcella Cheng/The Conversation NY-BD-CC, CC BY-SA

Sunanda Creagh, The Conversation

Originally for adults, many fairy tales can be brutal, violent, sexual and laden with taboo. When the earliest recorded versions were made by collectors such as the Brothers Grimm, the adult content was maintained. But as time progressed, the tales became diluted, child-friendly and more benign.

Adults consciously and unconsciously continue to tell them today, despite advances in logic, science and technology. It’s as if there is something ingrained in us – something we cannot suppress – that compels us to interpret the world around us through the lens of such tales.

That’s what we’re exploring on the latest episode of Essays On Air, the audio version of our Friday essay series. Today, Marguerite Johnson, Professor of Classics at the University of Newcastle, is reading her essay Why grown-ups still need fairy tales.

Join us as we read to you here at Essays On Air, a podcast from The Conversation.

Find us and subscribe in Apple Podcasts, in Pocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Additional audio

Snow by David Szesztay

Mourning Song by Kevin MacLeod

Jack and the Beanstalk by UB Iwerks

Cinderella (1950), produced by Walt Disney

Candle in the Wind/Goodbye England’s Rose by Elton John

P. I. Tchaikovsky: Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy, performed by Kevin MacLeod from Free Music Archive.

The ConversationThis episode was recorded by Eddie O’Reilly and edited by Jenni Henderson. Illustration by Marcella Cheng.

Sunanda Creagh, Head of Digital Storytelling, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.