Two new papers are published today in the CREATe working paper series. The papers build on submissions by members of CREATe to public consultations launched in the UK by the Competitions and Market Authority (CMA) and the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in 2021 and 2022.
First, The Re-Intermediation of the Music Industries Value Chain: Market Definition, Streaming Gatekeepers and the Control of Data (CREATe Working Paper 2022/4) by Kenny Barr, Magali Eben and Martin Kretschmer draws on CREATe’s response to the CMA’s call for comments on the Music and Streaming Market Study Statement of Scope. The market study came about as a result of recommendations made in the report of the DCMS inquiry into the Economics of Music Streaming, a report that cited evidence submitted by CREATe. The working paper identifies three key areas where the CMA market study should direct particular attention: the definition of ‘music streaming market’; the relationships between self-release creators/micro-producers and music streaming services; the control, interoperability and portability of data.
Secondly, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patents (CREATe Working Paper 2022/5) reproduces a response submitted by Martin Kretschmer, Bartolomeo Meletti and Luis H Porangaba to the IPO’s consultation on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: copyright and patents. The working paper comments on three specific areas identified by the IPO: copyright protection of computer-generated works, text and data mining exception, and patent protection for AI-devised inventions, as well as provides a general recommendation for introduction of a technologically neutral, open-ended user exception (‘fair use’).
Both submissions draw on research funded by the AHRC Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre (PEC). The working papers can be downloaded here.
The Re-Intermediation of the Music Industries Value Chain: Market Definition, Streaming Gatekeepers and the Control of Data
Kenny Barr, Magali Eben, and Martin Kretschmer
This submission responds to the Consultation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for its proposed market study on the ‘Music and streaming market’. Three key areas are identified that require particular attention:
- the definition of ‘music streaming market’, in particular understanding audio in a wider context, and where music streaming is a complementary but secondary component of business models;
- the relationships between self-release creators/micro-producers and music streaming services, in particular the role of established and new-entrant gatekeeping intermediaries, such as collective management organisations (CMOs) and artist and label (A&L) services;
- the control, interoperability and portability of data, in particular content identifiers, content metadata (such as ownership) and data associated with the digital identity of artists (such as their followers and other information about users and use).
The Opinion draws on empirical research from legal and socio-cultural perspectives examining Intellectual Property issues in artist labour markets, along with research in the field of Competition Law in the context of multisided platforms.
Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patents – a response to the UK Intellectual Property Office’s open consultation
Martin Kretschmer, Bartolomeo Meletti and Luis H Porangaba
The UK Intellectual Property Office consulted between October 2021 and January 2022 on policy options for Intellectual Property Law interventions that could ‘secure the UK’s position amongst the global AI superpowers’, in line with the government’s national AI Strategy (September 2021) and the vision ‘to make the UK a global hub for innovation by 2035’ (UK Innovation Strategy, July 2021). CREATe, the Copyright and Creative Economy Centre at the University of Glasgow, submitted a response on behalf of the AHRC Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre (PEC).
We show that policy makers are in a difficult position to assess reform proposals relating to Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property because evidence remains scarce.
With respect to computer-generated works and patent inventorship, we urge caution. There is no evidence that new rights are needed. The onus of proof needs to lie with the proponents of much discussed proposals, such as offering AI copyright authorship in the guise of computer-generated works, or granting AI inventorship under patent law.
With respect to Text and Data Mining, we see a straightforward opportunity to stimulate UK innovation and improve the transparency of AI systems by opening up the current ‘Hargreaves’ exception to all users (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: s.29A, Copies for text and data analysis for non-commercial research).
More generally, the UK’s research and innovation environment would in our view benefit from a technologically neutral, open-ended user exception (akin to the copyright doctrine of ‘fair use’ in the US).