Non-commercial user-generated content and exceptions to copyright : a comparison between the US, Canada, and the EU
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The topic of this thesis is how existing limitations and exceptions to copyright address the conflict between the economic interests of rightsholders and the interests of users in producing and disseminating user-generated content. Creative appropriation is heavily present in user-generated content in the Web 2.0. However, appropriative expressions often clash with copyright. Technological developments have resulted in the expansion of exclusive rights at the expense of limitations and exceptions. The concerns of rightsholders are increasingly focused on protecting economic interests. The thesis utilizes the legal dogmatic approach and the comparative legal method with a focus on the US, Canadian, and EU jurisdictions. Microcomparative comparison between the jurisdictions examines how each of them have addressed the balancing of interests between rightsholders and users in their limitations and exceptions. The political and historical contexts of the jurisdictions are discussed on a macrocomparative level. The main sources are constitutional authorities, statutory copyright legislation and case-law of each of the jurisdictions. References are also made to international treaties, such as Berne, TRIPS, WCT and WPPT. The main findings of the thesis are that US fair use accepts a wide range of purposes – many of which pertain to user-generated content. However, the ambiguous nature of the doctrine may be a hurdle for users. In Canadian copyright law, user-generated content benefits from a fair dealing exception and a non-commercial UGC exception, which are to be interpreted widely and without unduly limiting users’ rights. EU copyright law recognizes the need to balance between the interests of rightsholders and users, but limitations and exceptions are interpreted strictly and regarded as derogations to exclusive rights. The approach in EU lacks the mechanisms and flexibilities to effectively respond to and protect the new user-generated types of expressions prominent in the Web 2.0. The thesis concludes that an imperative step for the EU is to elevate limitations and exceptions to copyright to the same level as exclusive rights. Additionally, a combination of a specific exception for non-commercial user-generated content and a (semi-)open-ended exception allows for effective balancing between rightsholders’ and users’ interests. A wider-scale examination of the different aspects of copyright law that impact user-generated content is required in order to better understand the effects and normative potential of the exceptions analyzed in this thesis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».