Enlighten Publications

In this section

Defining the public domain in economic terms – approaches and consequences for policy

Erickson, K. (2016) Defining the public domain in economic terms – approaches and consequences for policy. Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 10(1), pp. 61-74.

Preview

Text
118523_1.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
201kB

Publisher's URL: https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/etikk_i_praksis/article/view/1951

Abstract

Stimulating innovation and growth in the so-called ‘creative economy’ is a current policy objective for national regulators. One policy lever that can be applied to the creative sector is intellectual property. For example, regulators may alter the scope or term of protection offered by copyright law. Increased copyright protection limits the size of the public domain by restricting access to and use of cultural expressions. Opposition to expansion and further enclosure of the cultural public domain was previously articulated in terms of access to a commons of information. Following the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property in 2011, copyright reform in the UK context has been increasingly framed in terms of economic policy objectives. This paper reviews two economic approaches which shape how researchers and policymakers discuss the public domain in debates about IP reform: an economic welfare approach which weighs increases in producer and consumer surplus under different policy configurations and an economics of innovation approach which considers the value of the public domain as a reservoir of ideas for innovators and firms. I argue that economic definitions of the public domain should be augmented by a consideration of the democratic requirements of freedom of expression and access to information. The consequences of this re-figuration of the public domain for the public interest and access to information are discussed.

Item Type:	Articles
Keywords:	Copyright, public domain, public interest, economic welfare, innovation, media policy
Status:	Published
Refereed:	Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:	Erickson, Professor Kristofer
Authors:	Erickson, K.
Subjects:	J Political Science > JA Political science (General) K Law > K Law (General)
College/School:	College of Social Sciences > School of Law
Research Group:	CREATe
Journal Name:	Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics
Journal Abbr.:	EiP
Publisher:	Programme for Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, NTNU 7491, Trondheim, Norway
ISSN:	1890-3991
ISSN (Online):	1890-4009
Copyright Holders:	Copyright © 2016 Erickson, K
First Published:	First published in Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 10(1): 61-74
Publisher Policy:	Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record

Funder and Project Information

Project Code	Award No	Project Name	Principal Investigator	Funder's Name	Funder Ref	Lead Dept
62124	1	The Value of Public Domain Works: Collaboration and Knowledge Exchange to Develop Policies for the Commercial Use of Public Domain Works	Martin Kretschmer	Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)	ES/K008137/1	SCHOOL OF LAW

References

Alexy, O., Reitzig, M. (2013). Private–collective innovation, competition, and firms’ counterintuitive appropriation strategies. Research Policy 42(4): 895-913. Bechtold, S. (2013). The Fashion of TV Show Formats. Michigan State Law Review 2013(2): 451-512. Bechtold, S., Buccafusco, B. (2015). On the Shoulders of Giants or the Road Less Travelled? An Experimental Approach to Sequential Innovation in Intellectual Property. Paper presented at the European Policy for Intellectual Property (EPIP) conference, Glasgow, UK, 4th September, 2015. Bechtold, S., Buccafusco, B., Sprigman, C. (2016 forthcoming). Innovation heuristics: experiments on sequential creativity in intellectual property. Indiana Law Journal (forthcoming 2016): 1-63. Benkler, Y. (1999). Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraints on enclosure of the public domain. NYU Law Review 74(2): 354-445. Boyle, J. (2003). The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary Problems 66(1/2): 33-74. Buccafusco, C., Heald, P. (2013). Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter the Public Domain: Empirical Tests of Copyright Term Extension. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 28: 1-44. Buccafusco, C., Sprigman, C. (2011). The Creativity Effect. University of Chicago Law Review, 78(1): 31-52. Craig, C. (2006). Putting the community in communication: Dissolving the conflict between freedom of expression and copyright. University of Toronto Law Journal, 56(1): 75-114. Davies, G. (2002). Copyright and the public interest. London, UK, Sweet & Maxwell. Deazley, R. (2007). Copyright’s public domain. In Waelde, C. and MacQueen, H. (Eds.), Intellectual Property: The Many Faces of the Public Domain. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. Erickson, K., Heald, P., Homberg, F., Kretschmer, M., Mendis, D. (2015). Copyright and the Value of the Public Domain: An Empirical Assessment. London, UK, Intellectual Property Office. Firth, A. (2008). 'Holding the line' - The Relationship between the Public Interest and Remedies Granted or Refused, Be It for Breach of Confidence or Copyright. In Torremans, P. (Ed.), Copyright and Human Rights (pp. 421-449). Second Edition. Kluwer Law International. Gowers, A. (2006). Gowers review of intellectual property. London, UK, The Stationery Office. Hargreaves, I. (2011). Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth: An Independent Report. London, UK, Intellectual Property Office. Harhoff, D. Henkel, J., Von Hippel, E. (2003). Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy 32(10): 1753-1769. Harrison, J., Woods, L. (2007). European Broadcasting Law and Policy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Heald, P. (2014). How Copyright Keeps Works Disappeared. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(4): 829-866. Heald, P., Erickson, K., Kretschmer, M. (2016). The Valuation of Unprotected Works: A Case Study of Public Domain Photographs on Wikipedia. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 29(1): 1-37. Kretschmer, M. (2014). The reasons for copyright takedown on YouTube, and what they tell us about copyright exceptions. Paper presented at the Fair Copyright Workshop, 6-7 January 2014, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Landes, W., Posner, R. (1989). An economic analysis of copyright law. The Journal of Legal Studies 18(2): 325-363. Lecocq, X., & Demil, B. (2006). Strategizing industry structure: the case of open systems in a low‐tech industry. Strategic Management Journal, 27(9): 891-898. Lessig, L. (2004). Free Culture–the Nature and Future of Creativitiy. New York, Penguin Books. Peitz, M., Waelbroeck, P. (2006). Piracy of digital products: A critical review of the theoretical literature. Information Economics and Policy, 18(4): 449-476. Raymond, E. (1998). The cathedral and the bazaar. First Monday, 3(2). doi: 10.5210/fm.v3i2.578 Rose, C. (2003). Romans, roads, and romantic creators: Traditions of public property in the information age, Law and Contemporary Problems 66(1/2), p. 89-110. Scotchmer, S. (2004). Innovation and incentives. Cambridge, MA, MIT press. Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15(6): 285-305. Towse, R. (2014). Advanced introduction to cultural economics. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing. Von Hippel, E., Von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science 14(2): 209-223. Yoo, C. S. (2007). Copyright and Public Good Economics: A Misunderstood Relation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155(3): 635-715.

Deposit and Record Details

ID Code:	118523
Depositing User:	Professor Kristofer Erickson
Datestamp:	20 Apr 2016 10:12
Last Modified:	28 May 2020 10:26
Date of acceptance:	29 March 2016
Date of first online publication:	2016
Date Deposited:	20 April 2016
Data Availability Statement:	No