This project critically assessed copyright policy initiatives that flowed from the Hargreaves Review, and at the European level. It also explored the evolution of European copyright jurisprudence, and the vexed question of what evidence-based policy may mean within the copyright domain.
Project outputs include:
- Copyright and the Economic Effects of Parody: An empirical study of music videos on the YouTube platform, and an assessment of regulatory options, Independent Report for the UK Intellectual Property Office, 2013 - This is the third in a sequence of three reports on Parody & Pastiche, commissioned to evaluate policy options in the implementation of the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property & Growth. This research was also published as a CREATe Working Paper.
- What Constitutes Evidence for Copyright Policy?, Digital Proceedings of ESRC Symposium, 2013 - This report summarises the ‘What constitutes evidence for copyright policy?’ symposium held at Bournemouth University in November, 2012. The symposium explored the concept of evidence as employed in copyright policy making, and challenged the concept from a social science perspective. This report was also made available as a CREATe Working Paper.
- European Policy for Intellectual Property (EPIP) 2015, Glasgow, UK, 1st September 2015 to 3rd September 2015 - Delegates interested in the economic, legal and political aspects of intellectual property rights explored the role of Intellectual Property (IP) in the Creative Economy, with a focus on copyright, data and the changing economics of the digital world. This website provides a historical record of the conference with access to the programme and available conference materials including curated multimedia such as video recordings of keynotes, plenaries and some panels.
- Is there a EU Copyright Jurisprudence? An empirical analysis of the workings of the European Court of Justice, Modern Law Review - This study aims to investigate empirically two theories in relation to the development of EU copyright law: (i) that the Court has failed to develop a coherent copyright jurisprudence (lacking domain expertise, copyright specific reasoning, and predictability); (ii) that the Court has pursued an activist, harmonising agenda (resorting to teleological interpretation of European law rather than – less discretionary – semantic and systematic legal approaches). This research was also made available as CREATe Working Paper