CREATe is happy to announce a series of seminars with our early career researchers, which will be held online.

Can 3D technology change the way we view the ownership of cultural heritage?

The first seminar with Dr Pınar Oruç our new postdoctoral colleague, will take place on Monday 12 October at 2.30pm and will be chaired by Dr Marta Iljadica, CREATe Co-Director and Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law. 

Short Bio: Pinar completed her PhD titled ‘The Role of Copyright in the Digitisation of Cultural Heritage’ at Queen Mary University of London. She also holds an LLM from Cardiff University and a BA in Law from Koc University. She has previously worked in QMUL, UCL and University of Essex.  

Abstract: Making reproductions of cultural heritage is already a common practice, but the developments in the 3D technology allow making faster and more accurate copies of the existing works. This presentation will examine whether this technology can change how we view the ownership of cultural heritage by questioning (i) how 3D technology can help heritage, (ii) how it affects restitution dynamics, (iii) how it can create new copyright ownership and (iv) who holds the scans when the original artefacts are returned. It will be discussed whether 3D technology can reduce longstanding restitution claims or complicate the matters even further.

Some of our CREATe PGRs (L-R): Jie Liu, Zihao Li, Methinee Suwannakit and Jiarong Zhang (pre-social distancing!)

On 31 July 2020 CREATe PGRs participated in the University of Glasgow School of Law virtual PGR ‘Work in Progress’ session, sharing their updates under the Law and Technology (Methinee Suwannakit and Zihao Li), Social, Economic and Cultural Rights Recognition (Jiarong Zhang) and Copyright (Janet Burgess and Jie Liu) panels. Amy Thomas (RTA, Copyright Evidence Wiki Sub-Editor), one of the co-organisers of the PGR workshop, also chaired the Q&A sessions for the Social, Economic and Cultural Rights Recognition and Copyright sessions. This blog provides a summary of the PGR presentations, with some reflections on their experiences, valued feedback and future research directions.

Law and Technology

Beginning the session, the Law and Technology panel approached legal issues in the digital environment from multiple perspectives, including finance, tort and privacy law (ending in a topical discussion on blockchain and COVID contact tracing apps). Continue reading →

This report is being published together with the related CREATe Working Paper 2020/8 – Copyright and Quotation in Film and TV – by Professor Lionel Bently. The paper Copyright and Quotation in Film and TV is an edited transcript of the keynote delivered by Bently at Learning on Screen Members’ Day: Copyright and Creative Reuse, 8th December 2018, RSA House, London, and updated to reflect changes in the law as of 24 April 2020. You can access the paper here.

On 12^th February 2020, I had the pleasure to attend the excellent CREATe Public Lecture Copyright and Quotation: Beyond the Textual Paradigm by Professor Lionel Bently (University of Cambridge). I was particularly interested in this lecture as I am currently conducting a research project aimed exploring the role that creative and cultural practice can play in defining legal standards such as fairness, using the quotation exception as a lens of investigation.

The Berne Convention requires its 188 participants to recognise the quotation right. Article 10(1) states:

This is a written version of a presentation given by Prof. Martin Kretschmer on 16 July 2020 at the Westminster Media Forum policy conference “The future for the UK’s copyright framework”. A shorter blog is available via the AHRC Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre. 

The UK government claims that Brexit will open up “significant opportunities” for the UK. Under their latest three word strapline, Check, Change, Go, a new campaign aims to prepare the UK for the end of the “transition period” on 31 December 2020. In line with messaging guidance, the word Brexit is not mentioned once. Rather: “The campaign will ensure we are all ready to seize the opportunities available for the first time in nearly fifty years as a fully sovereign United Kingdom.”

What is the room for maneuvre for the UK as a sovereign country? And what will the end of the transition period imply for the creative industries? In this presentation, I will discuss three aspects relating to intellectual property law, in the context of the wider legal order.

(1) The effects of the UK falling out of the single market; 

(2) future regulatory competition with the EU and other trading partners; and

(3) UK constitutional implications.

Continue reading →

Guest post by Lee Edwards, Associate Professor at LSE, and Giles Moss, Associate Professor at University of Leeds.

In just under a year’s time, the Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive (CDSM) should be fully implemented in EU member states. The Directive was contested at its inception, throughout its development, and once it was passed into law. While the text is now set, its interpretation at the national level remains the purview of individual states, and it is by no means guaranteed that the controversy marking its journey thus far, will abate.

Member states have made variable progress. As the CREATe implementation resource shows, some countries have tabled draft implementation bills, some have opened the bills up to stakeholder consultation, and some have not yet addressed the issue. Where consultation is part of the process, approaches vary widely. Ireland, for example, has consulted prior to formulating a draft bill by issuing a set of questions to the public, but responses are not visible and no report on the consultation has been issued as yet. In Slovenia, consultation was also carried out before drafting a bill, but without any questions to guide submissions, potentially limiting the relevance of responses. In contrast, Croatia invited public comment on a drafted bill via an already-established website where consultations are regularly promoted, and all comments are visible. Other countries have completely bypassed any kind of public consultation. In a classic example of copyright policymaking engaging primarily with its ‘usual suspects’, Sweden, Belgium, Lithuania and Slovakia have all convened discussion with a limited group of invited stakeholders and the outcomes of discussions are not transparent. In Sweden, adequate representation of user organisations was achieved only after NGOs challenged the government’s approach; it is not clear how much influence they will have when other stakeholders enjoy more established relationships with policymakers. In Belgium, leaked documents, rather than government initiatives, have been the source of public awareness while in Lithuania and Slovakia the outcomes of discussions on implementation have not been communicated to the public. Clearly, no matter what the apparently democratic structures of society suggest, across the EU the public right to influence an enormously significant policy is both limited and fragile.