Destereotyping the Copyright Wars: The 'Fair Use vs. Closed List' Debate in the EU
SSRN Electronic Journal
2015
- 2Citations
- 2,768Usage
- 5Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The paper critically addresses the alleged lack of flexibility of the closed list of limitations to copyright. It calls into question the established idea that the closed catalogue of Article 5 of the Information Society Directive has been preventing European courts from accommodating new technology-enabled uses of copyrighted works. Particularly, it analyses the judicial approach on both sides of the Atlantic to three of these uses: thumbnails, caching and downloading. The conclusion reached in the paper is twofold: (i) European courts frequently interpret limitations in an ample fashion, rendering emerging unauthorized uses non-infringing, despite the absence of a limitation whose letter expressly harbors them; (ii) the outcomes courts reach in Europe and in the U.S. are largely convergent, in spite of the doctrinal differences. The analysis suggests that the main problem with closed lists of limitations is the legal uncertainty they generate – the opposite of what is commonly touted as being their main advantage.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know