Morning Coffee with CREATe returns this summer for a short (but powerful) ristretto edition! In this series of informal seminars, early career researchers will have an opportunity to present their work in progress and discuss ideas for future projects with their peers and senior academics.
All Morning Coffee sessions in this edition will be hybrid, and attendees are welcome to join either in-person or online via Zoom. Unlike our previous editions, Ristretto Morning Coffees, will take place on Thursdays beginning with a roundtable discussion on 19th May. If you would like to join us, please do register in advance via email with Diane McGrattan (email@example.com), both for in-person and online attendance. And remember to bring your morning coffee (or tea)!
Creative Underdogs Roundtable
Thursday 19 May, 10am – 11am
As cultural markets become increasingly dominated by large corporates and big tech, this roundtable explores the experiences of ‘creative underdogs’. In theory, IP promises equal opportunity for all, and perhaps arguably, especially the small, entrepreneurial, and independent creators – but is this promise fulfilled? In this discursive roundtable session, we will consider the relationship between creative underdogs and IP, looking for commonalities, differences, and alternative community standards that distinguish them (or not?) from established players.
Everyone is invited to contribute to the session by offering an example of creative underdog(s) in action across any of the creative sectors (e.g., music, film, games etc.). The roundtable will take a form of a (lightly moderated) open discussion. Let the ideas flow!
Copyright Governance by Algorithms: Towards a more transparent regime
Aline Iramina (PhD Candidate, University of Glasgow)
Thursday 26 May, 10am – 11am
In a platform era, where millions of music, movies, books, and other kinds of creative works are easily available online, algorithms are shaping a new landscape for copyright governance. Online platforms, acting as private rule-makers, have increasingly deployed algorithms as a tool of governance, regulating and influencing the circulation of copyright material and its access on the Internet. The way algorithms are employed by online platforms to constraint and influence users’ behaviour is a good example of the nodal model of governance, in which considerable regulatory power is allocated into the hands of non-state actors. However, the fact that there are more actors governing the system does not mean that it is necessarily fairer or more democratic. There are already complaints from copyright actors about the way algorithmic systems are employed by online platforms, especially regarding the lack of transparency of these systems, which have led governments to discuss the necessity of some regulatory intervention to address this issue.
This presentation introduces some of the main aspects involving the impact of algorithms on copyright governance, with a particular focus on the music streaming industry in the UK. By analysing the documents collected from the “Economics of Music Streaming” inquiry conducted by the UK Parliament, the main idea is to show some of the main concerns and normative implications involving the use of algorithmic systems by online platforms for copyright governance and who are the main actors and networks within this governance system.
The Intersection Between Law and Art History: Comparing Interpretations of the Intentional Destruction of Art
Rosie Wilson (LLM(Res) alumna, University of Glasgow)
Thursday 9 June, 10am – 11am
The intentional destruction of art is a highly contentious and complex topic. In recent years the importance of the destruction of art has been increasingly recognised but, thus far, very few studies have directly compared law and art history’s approaches to destruction. This presentation addresses this gap in the literature by exploring a socio-legal comparison of interpretations of the intentional destruction of art in law and art history. This comparison is structured around four categories of destruction identified from recent art-historical literature on destruction, including conflict-related, religious, political, and artistic destruction, as well as the distinction between the destruction of art and destruction as art.
Overall, this presentation shows that interpretations of the intentional destruction of art differ between law and art history and the role of art history in influencing law is limited. While art historians effectively differentiate between different categories of destruction and interpret the meaning behind individual destructive acts, the law struggles to do this. This exposes a fundamental limitation of the regulation of the destruction of art. Under the current legal framework, the law regulates the destruction of art without looking to art history to understand what destruction means to art. Consequently, the law risks confusing important creative expressions and artistic practices with intentional acts of violence and harm.