Implementing copyright revocation in Ireland and Malta: lessons for lawmakers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article 22 of the European Union's (EU's)Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive requires EU Member States to permit creators to revoke copyright grants if there is a 'lack of exploitation' of the works. These types of provisions can help creators remonetize and increase the availability of works that may have gone dormant, especially in the context of concerns about imbalanced bargaining relationships between creators and publishers. In recent years, proposals for such laws have emerged in Canada, South Africa and the UK, while pre-existing reversion laws in the USA have caused high-profile disputes between artists, record companies and movie studios. Policymakers in these and other countries considering implementing or amending reversion laws will benefit from careful consideration of how reversion is being implemented and used elsewhere. To that end, this article evaluates the implementation of Article 22 in Ireland and Malta (given their similar lack of previous reversion laws and common law heritage). It identifies positive elements of the Article 22 transposition in those countries, while also highlighting issues with the substance and procedure of their transposed reversion provisions. This article then draws broader normative lessons from this analysis for policymakers considering implementing or amending reversion rights in their copyright laws.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it