Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:21:35.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2018

Graham Greenleaf  and
David Lindsay
Graham Greenleaf
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
David Lindsay
Affiliation:
University of Technology Sydney
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Public Rights
Copyright's Public Domains
 , pp. 563 - 588
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adeney, E., ‘Appropriation in the name of art? Is a quotation exception the answer?’ (2013) 23 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 142.Google Scholar
Adeney, E., ‘Authorship and fixation in copyright law: a comparative comment’ (2011) 35 Melbourne University Law Review 677.Google Scholar
Adeney, E., The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers: An International and Comparative Analysis (Oxford University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adeney, E. and Antons, C., ‘The Germania 3 decision translated: the quotation exception before the German Constitutional Court’ (2013) 35(11) European Intellectual Property Review 646.Google Scholar
Afori, O., ‘An open standard “fair use” doctrine: a welcome Israeli initiative’ (2008) 30(3) European Intellectual Property Review 85.Google Scholar
Afori, O., ‘Proportionality – a new mega standard in European copyright law’ (2015) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agitha, T., ‘International norms for compulsory licensing and the Indian copyright law’ (2012) 15(1) Journal of World Intellectual Property 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, I., Copyright Law and the Public Interest in the Nineteenth Century (Hart Publishing, 2010).Google Scholar
Ang, S., ‘The idea–expression dichotomy and merger doctrine in the copyright law of the US and the UK’ (1994) 2(2) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aplin, T., ‘Subject matter’, in Derclaye, E. (ed.), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (Edward Elgar, 2009).Google Scholar
Arnold, R., Bently, L. A. F., Derclaye, E. and Dinwoodie, G. B., ‘The legal consequences of Brexit through the lens of IP law’ (2017) 101(2)Judicature (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Atkinson, S., ‘Sir Cliff Richard’s victory: an extra 20 years for copyright protection in sound recordings and performers’ rights where a sound recording of the performance is released’ (2014) 36(2) European Intellectual Property Review 75.Google Scholar
Attorney-General’s Department (Aus.), Declaration of Collecting Societies – Guidelines (Copyright Act 1968), April 2001.Google Scholar
Attorney-General’s Department (Aust.), Extending the Legal Deposit Scheme to Digital Material: Regulation Impact Statement (2014).Google Scholar
Austin, G., ‘EU and US perspectives on fair dealing for the purpose of parody or satire’ (2016) 39(2) UNSW Law Journal 684.Google Scholar
Australian Government, ‘Response to the Productivity Commission inquiry into intellectual property arrangements’, Commonwealth of Australia, August 2017.Google Scholar
Australian Information Commissioner, ‘Open access principles’, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OIAC), May 2011.Google Scholar
Australian Law Reform Commission, Copyright and the Digital Economy, ALRC Report 122, November 2013.Google Scholar
Australian Research Council, Open Access Policy, v. 2015.1, Australian Research Council (ARC), 2015.Google Scholar
Baker, E., ‘First Amendment limits on copyright’ (2002) 55 Vanderbilt Law Review 891.Google Scholar
Band, J. and Garafi, J., The Fair Use/Fair Dealing Handbook (policybandwidth, March 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannerman, S., International Copyright and Access to Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battelle, J., The Search – How Google and its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed our Culture (Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2005).Google Scholar
Beebe, B., ‘An empirical study of US copyright fair use opinions, 1978–2005’ (2008) 156 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 549.Google Scholar
Beldiman, D., ‘Utilitarian information works – is originality the proper lens?’ (2010) 14(1) Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 1.Google Scholar
Benabou, V.-L. and Dusollier, S., ‘Draw me a public domain’, in Torremans, P. (ed.), Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar, 2007).Google Scholar
Benkler, Y., ‘Coase’s penguin or, Linux and the nature of the firm’ (2002) 112 Yale Law Journal 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkler, Y., ‘Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraints on enclosure of the public domain’ (1999) 74 New York University Law Review 354.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y., ‘Through the looking glass: Alice and the constitutional foundations of the public domain’ (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 173.Google Scholar
Bently, L., ‘Bently slams “very disappointing” ruling in Meltwater’, 27 July 2011, The IPKat http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/07/bently-slams-very-disappointing-ruling.html.Google Scholar
Bently, L., ‘‘Harmonisation by stealth: copyright and the ECJ’, unpublished paper presented at the Fordham IP Conference, 8 April 2012 http://fordhamipconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Bently_Harmonization.pdf.Google Scholar
Berlin, I., The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1953).Google Scholar
Berlin, I., ‘Two concepts of liberty’, in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
Besek, J. M., Ginsburg, J. C., Loengard, P. and Lev-Aretz, Y., ‘Copyright exceptions in the United States for educational uses of copyrighted works’, The Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts, Columbia University School of Law, 29 April 2013 www.screenrights.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Attachment_A_Kernochan_Ctr_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Birnhack, M., ‘The copyright law and free speech: making-up and breaking-up’ (2003) 43 IDEA 233.Google Scholar
Birnhack, M., ‘Copyrighting speech: a trans-Atlantic view’, in Torremans, P. (ed.), Copyright and Human Rights – Freedom of Expression – Intellectual Property – Privacy (Kluwer Law International, 2004).Google Scholar
Birnhack, M., ‘More or better? Shaping the public domain’, in Guibault, L. and Hugenholtz, P. B. (eds.), The Future of the Public Domain: Identifying the Commons in Information Law (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar
Birnhack, M., ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls case: who is an author?’ (2001) 23 European Intellectual Property Review 128.Google Scholar
Birrell, A., Seven Lectures on the Law and History of Copyright in Books (Cassell & Co., 1899).Google Scholar
Bitton, M., ‘Trends in protection for informational works under copyright law during the 19th and 20th centuries’ (2006) 13 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 115.Google Scholar
Black Duck Knowledge Base, ‘Top open source licenses’, undated www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses.Google Scholar
Bogsch, A., ‘WIPO views of Article 18’ (1995) 43 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 181.Google Scholar
Bond, C. and Greenleaf, G., ‘Copyright duration in Australia: 1869 to 2014’ (2015) 25(3) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 155.Google Scholar
Borghi, M., ‘Report backs up the overly burdensome nature of the “Diligent Search” requirement in UK, Italy and Netherlands’, Diligent Search website, 9 February 2016.Google Scholar
Bowrey, K., ‘On clarifying the role of originality and fair use in nineteenth century UK jurisprudence: appreciating “the humble grey which emerges as the result of long controversy”’, in Bently, L., Ng, C. and d’Agostino, G. (eds.), The Common Law of Intellectual Property: Essays in Honour of Professor David Vaver (Hart Publishing, 2010).Google Scholar
Boyle, J., ‘Foreword: the opposite of property?’ (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 1.Google Scholar
Boyle, J., ‘The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain’ (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 33.Google Scholar
Boyle, J., Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society (Harvard University Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, D., ‘Copyright and parody in Australia: some thoughts on Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Company’ (2002) 13 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 161.Google Scholar
Brennan, D., ‘The first compulsory licensing of patents and copyright’ (2017) 17 Legal History 1.Google Scholar
Brennan, D., Retransmission and US Compliance with TRIPs (Springer, 2003).Google Scholar
Brennan, D., ‘The three-step test frenzy – why the TRIPS panel decision might be considered per incuriam’ [2002] 2 Intellectual Property Quarterly 212.Google Scholar
Brennan, D. and Christie, A., ‘Spoken words and copyright subsistence in Anglo-American law’ (2000) 4 Intellectual Property Quarterly 4.Google Scholar
Brennan, D. and Fraser, M., ‘The use of subject matter with missing owners: Australian copyright policy options’, Screenrights commissioned paper, Communications Law Centre, UTS, 2011.Google Scholar
Brown, P., ‘Enforcement and compliance for the GPL and similar licenses’, LWN.net, 11 May 2016 https://lwn.net/Articles/686768/.Google Scholar
Bureau of Communications and Arts Research (Aus.), Discussion paper, ‘Review into the efficacy of the Code of Conduct for Australian Copyright Collecting Societies’, August 2017.Google Scholar
Burrell, R., ‘Reining in copyright law: is fair use the answer?’ (2001) 4 Intellectual Property Quarterly 361.Google Scholar
Burrell, R. and Coleman, A., Copyright Exceptions: The Digital Impact (Cambridge University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrell, R. and Weatherall, K., ‘Exporting controversy? Reactions to the copyright provisions of the US–Australia Free Trade Agreement: lessons for US trade policy’ (2008) 2 University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 259.Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. and Melamed, A., ‘Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: one view of the cathedral’ (1972) 85 Harvard Law Review 1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canat, J., Guibault, L. and Logeais, E., ‘Study on copyright limitations and exceptions for museums’, WIPO SCCR, Thirtieth Session (Geneva, 2015) www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_30/sccr_30_2.pdf.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. and Hetcher, S., ‘Function over form: bringing the fixation requirement into the modern era’ (2014) 82 Fordham Law Review 2221.Google Scholar
Carroll, C., ‘Fixing fair use’ (2007) 85 North Carolina Law Review 1087.Google Scholar
Carter, J., Peden, E. and Stammer, K., ‘Contractual restrictions and rights under copyright legislation’ (2007) 23 Journal of Contract Law 32.Google Scholar
Cerda Silva, A., ‘Beyond the unrealistic solution for development provided by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on copyright’ (2013) 60 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 581.Google Scholar
Chander, A. and Sunder, M., ‘The romance of the public domain’ (2004) 92 California Law Review 1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chander, A., Sunder, M. and Le, U., ‘Golan v. Holder’ (2012) 106 American Journal of International Law 637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choisy, S., La Domaine public et droit d’auteur (Litec, 2002).Google Scholar
Christie, A., ‘A proposal for simplifying United Kingdom copyright law’ [2001] European Intellectual Property Review 26.Google Scholar
Clark, C., ‘The answer to the machine is in the machine’, in Hugenholtz, P. B. (ed.), The Future of Copyright in a Digital Environment (Kluwer Law International, 1996).Google Scholar
Clay, B., ‘Robots exclusion protocol guide’ (2015), Bruce Clay, Inc. internet marketing optimization company www.bruceclay.com/seo/robots-exclusion-guide.pdf.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., ‘Copyright law and the myth of objectivity: the idea–expression dichotomy and the inevitability of artistic judgments’ (1990) 66 Indiana Law Review 175.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice (Yale University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Cohen, J., ‘Copyright, commodification, and culture’, in Guibault, L. and Hugenholtz, P. B. (eds.), The Future of the Public Domain: Identifying the Commons in Information Law (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar
Cohen, J., ‘A right to read anonymously: a closer look at “copyright management” in cyberspace’ (1996) 28 Connecticut Law Review 981.Google Scholar
Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure and Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age (National Academy Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Committee on the Law of Copyright, Report, with minutes of evidence, appendix and table of contents (Printed for H.M. Stationery Office by Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1909).Google Scholar
Coombe, R., ‘Fear, hope, and longing for the future of authorship and a revitalized public domain in global regimes of intellectual property’ (2002–3) 52 DePaul Law Review 1171.Google Scholar
Copyright Board of Canada, ‘Decisions – unlocatable copyright owners, de Beer and Bouchard, Canada’s “Orphan Works” Regime’ www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences-e.html.Google Scholar
Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) (Aus.), Copyright and Contract (Copyright Law Review Committee, Canberra, 2002).Google Scholar
Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) (Aust.), Computer Software Protection, Office of Legal Information and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, April 1995.Google Scholar
Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) (Aust.), Crown Copyright, Copyright Law Review Committee, Barton, ACT (2005).Google Scholar
Copyright Review Committee (Ireland), Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Modernising Copyright (2013).Google Scholar
Corbett, C., ‘Creative Commons licences, the copyright regime and the online community: is there a fatal disconnect?’ (2011) 74(4) Modern Law Review 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), Fair Dealing Guidelines (2012) www.cmec.ca/docs/copyright/Fair_Dealing_Guidelines_EN.pdf.Google Scholar
Crews, K., ‘Study on copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives’, WIPO SCCR, Seventeenth Session, Geneva, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, K., ‘Study on copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives’, WIPO SCCR, Twenty-Ninth Session, Geneva, 2014.Google Scholar
Cuevos, M., ‘Dutch copyright succumbs to aging as exhaustion extends to e-books’ (2015) 10(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Agostino, G., ‘Healing fair dealing? A comparative analysis of Canada’s fair dealing to UK fair dealing and US fair use’ (2008) 53 McGill Law Journal 309.Google Scholar
Daum, F., ‘Copyright, European competition law, and free movement of goods and services’, in Walter, M. M. and von Lewinski, S. (eds.), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
de Beer, J. and Bouchard, M., ‘Canada’s “orphan works” regime: unlocatable copyright owners and the Copyright Board’ [2010] 10(2) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Zwart, M., ‘Technological enclosure of copyright: the end of fair dealing?’ (2007) 18 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 7.Google Scholar
Deazley, R., ‘Copyright and digital copyright heritage: duration of copyright’, Copyright 101, Copyright Codex https://copyrightcortex.org/copyright-101/chapter-6, May 2017.Google Scholar
Deazley, R., ‘Copyright and digital cultural heritage: orphan works’, Copyright 101, Copyright Codex, May 2017 https://copyrightcortex.org/copyright-101/chapter-9.Google Scholar
Deazley, R., ‘Copyright and parody: taking backwards the Gowers Review?’ [2010] 73(5) Modern Law Review 785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deazley, R., Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language (Edward Elgar, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denicola, R., ‘Copyright and free speech: constitutional limitations on the protection of expression’ (1979) 67 California Law Review 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Communications and the Arts (Aus.), ‘Guidelines on Licensing Public Sector Information for Australian Government Entities’ (September 2016).Google Scholar
Department of Finance (Australia), Declaration of Open Government, 16 July 2010.Google Scholar
Derclaye, E., ‘Assessing the impact and reception of the Court of Justice of the European Union case law on UK copyright law: what does the future hold?’ [2014] 240 Revue internationale du droit d’auteur 5.Google Scholar
Derclaye, E., ‘Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08): wonderful or worrisome? The impact of the ECJ ruling in Infopaq on UK copyright law’ (2010) 32(5) European Intellectual Property Review 247.Google Scholar
Directorate General for the Internal Market and Services (European Union), Working Paper: ‘First evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases’, European Commission, 12 December 2005.Google Scholar
Donner, W., ‘Mill’s utilitarianism’, in Skorupski, J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Mill (Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
Drahos, P., ‘Freedom and diversity – a defence of the intellectual commons’, in Reddy, P. Jayanthi (ed.), Creative Commons: International Perspectives (ICFAI University Press, 2008–9).Google Scholar
Drahos, P., A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Aldershot, 1996).Google Scholar
Drassinower, A., ‘Exceptions properly so-called’, in Gendreau, Y. and Drassinower, A. (eds.), Language and Copyright (Carswell/Bruylent, 2009).Google Scholar
Drassinower, A., ‘A rights-based view of the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law’ (2003) 16 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drassinower, A., ‘Taking user rights seriously’, in Geist, M. (ed.), In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin Law, 2005).Google Scholar
Dreier, T., ‘Balancing proprietary and public domain interests: inside or outside of proprietary rights?’, in Dreyfus, R., Zimmerman, D. and First, H. (eds.), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Dreier, T., ‘Thoughts on revising the limitations on copyright under Directive 2001/29’ (2015) 11(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusollier, S., ‘Scoping study on copyright and related rights and the public domain’, WIPO, 30 April 2011 www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_7/cdip_7_inf_2.pdf.Google Scholar
Dworkin, G. and Sterling, J., ‘Phil Collins and the term directive’ (1994) 16(5)European Intellectual Property Review 187.Google Scholar
Elkin-Koren, N., ‘Can formalities save the public domain? Reconsidering formalities for the 2010s’ (2013) 28 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1537.Google Scholar
Elkin-Koren, N., ‘Cyberlaw and social change: a democratic approach to copyright in cyberspace’ (1996) 14 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 215.Google Scholar
Elkin-Koren, N., ‘Exploring creative commons: a skeptical view of a worthy pursuit’, in Guibault, L. and Hugenholtz, P. B. (eds.), The Future of the Public Domain (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar
Epstein, R., ‘The dubious constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act’ (2002) 36 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 123.Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market’, COM (2016) 593 final (14 September 2016).Google Scholar
European Commission, Staff Working Paper, ‘Impact assessment on the cross-border online access to orphan works’, Accompanying the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain permitted uses of orphan works, COM (2011) 289 final (24 May 2011).Google Scholar
Farley, C., ‘Judging art’ (2005) 79 Tulane Law Review 805.Google Scholar
Favale, M., Homberg, F., Kretschmer, M., Mendis, D. and Secchi, D., ‘Copyright, and the regulation of orphan works: a comparative review of seven jurisdictions and a rights clearance simulation’, CREATe working paper 2013/7 (July 2013) https://zenodo.org/record/8377/files/CREATe-Working-Paper-2013-07.pdf.Google Scholar
Favale, M., Schroff, S. and Bertoni, A., Requirements for Diligent Search in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy, EnDow, February 2016.Google Scholar
Feather, J., ‘The book trade in politics: the making of the Copyright Act of 1710’ (1980) 8 Publishing History 39.Google Scholar
Feather, J., ‘Publishers and politicians: the remaking of the law of copyright in Britain 1775–1842. Part II: the rights of authors’ (1989) 25 Publishing History 45.Google Scholar
Fernández-Diez, I., ‘Comparative analysis on national approaches to the liability of internet intermediaries for infringement of copyright and related rights’, WIPO, 2010 www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/doc/liability_of_internet_intermediaries_garrote.pdf.Google Scholar
Ficsor, M., ‘Collective rights management from the viewpoint of international treaties, with special attention to the EU “acquis”’, in Gervais, D. (ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer, 2013).Google Scholar
Ficsor, M., ‘How much of what? The three-step test and its application in two recent WTO dispute settlement cases’ (2002) 192 Revue internationale du droit d’auteur 111.Google Scholar
Ficsor, M., The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 WIPO Treaties, their Interpretation and Implementation (Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Ficsor, M. and WIPO, ‘Guide to the copyright and related rights treaties administered by WIPO and glossary of copyright and related rights terms’, WIPO, 2003 www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/891/wipo_pub_891.pdf.Google Scholar
Fisher, W. and McGeveran, W., ‘The digital learning challenge: obstacles to educational uses of copyrighted material in the digital age: a foundational white paper’, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 10 August 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, B. and Bassett, G., ‘Legal issues relating to free and open source software’ (2001) 12 Journal of Law and Information Science 159.Google Scholar
Fornaro, M., ‘A parallel problem: grey market goods and the internet’ (2003) 8 Journal of Technology Law & Policy 69.Google Scholar
Gangjee, D., ‘Copyright formalities: A return to registration?’, in Giblin, R. and Weatherall, K. (eds.), What If We Could Reimagine Copyright? (Australian National University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Garnett, K. and Davies, G., Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 2 vols. (14th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998).Google Scholar
Garnett, K., Davies, G. and Harbottle, G., Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 2 vols. (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2005).Google Scholar
Garnett, K., Davies, G. and Harbottle, G., Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 2 vols. (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010).Google Scholar
Gasser, U. and Girsberger, M., ‘Transposing the Copyright Directive: legal protection of technological measures in EU Member States: a genie stuck in the bottle?’, Berkman Publication Series No. 2004-10 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, J., ‘Principles of community-oriented GPL enforcement’, Free Software Foundation (30 September 2015).Google Scholar
Geiger, C., ‘“Constitutionalising” intellectual property law? The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in the European Union’ [2006] International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 371.Google Scholar
Geiger, C., ‘Copyright’s fundamental rights dimension at EU level’, in Derclaye, E. (ed.), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (Edward Elgar, 2009).Google Scholar
Geiger, C., ‘Intellectual property shall be protected? – Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: a mysterious provision with an unclear scope’ (2009) 31(3) European Intellectual Property Review 113.Google Scholar
Geiger, C., ‘Promoting creativity through copyright limitations: reflections on the concept of exclusivity in copyright law’ (2010) 12(3) Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 515.Google Scholar
Geiger, C. and Izyumenko, E., ‘Copyright on the human rights trial: redefining the boundaries of exclusivity through freedom of expression’ (2014) 45 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, C. and Schönherr, F., ‘The Information Society Directive (Articles 5 and 6(4))’, in Stamatoudi, I. and Torremans, P. (eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (Edward Elgar, 2016).Google Scholar
Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Senftleben, M., Bently, L. and Xalabarder, R., ‘Limitations and exceptions as key elements of the legal framework for copyright in the European Union – opinion of the European Copyright Society on the judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn’ (2015) 46 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geist, M., ‘The case for flexibility in implementing the WIPO internet treaties: an examination of the anti-circumvention requirements’, in Geist, M. (ed.), From ‘Radical Extremism’ to ‘Balanced Copyright’: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda (Irwin Law Inc., 2010).Google Scholar
Geist, M., ‘Fair access: strikes the right balance on education and copyright’ (Academic Matters, January 2016) www.academicmatters.ca/2016/01/2279/.Google Scholar
Geist, M., ‘Fairness found: how Canada quietly shifted from fair dealing to fair use’, in Geist, M. (ed.), The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (University of Ottawa Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geist, M., ‘Too little, too late?: Access Copyright finally acknowledges the reduced value of its licences’, Michael Geist blog, 10 December 2014 www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/12/little-late-access-copyright-finally-acknowledges-reduced-value-licence/.Google Scholar
Geller, P., ‘A German approach to fair use: test cases for TRIPs criteria for copyright limitations?’ (2010) 57 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 553.Google Scholar
Geller, P., ‘From patchwork to network: strategies for international intellectual property in flux’ (1998) 31 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 553.Google Scholar
Gendreau, Y., ‘The criterion of fixation in copyright law’ (1994) 159 Revue internationale du droit d’auteur 110.Google Scholar
Gendreau, Y., Nordemann, A. and Oesch, R. (eds.), Copyright and Photographs: An International Survey (Kluwer Law International, 1999).Google Scholar
Gervais, D., ‘Canadian copyright law post-CCH’ (2004) 18 Intellectual Property Journal 131.Google Scholar
Gervais, D., ‘China – measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights’ (2009) 103(3) American Journal of International Law 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervais, D., ‘Collective management of copyright’, in Gervais, D. (ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer, 2016).Google Scholar
Gervais, D., ‘The derivative right, or why copyright law protects foxes better than hedgehogs’ (2013) 15(4) Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 785.Google Scholar
Gervais, D., ‘Feist goes global: a comparative analysis of the notion of originality in copyright law’ (2002) 49 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 949.Google Scholar
Gervais, D., ‘Golan v. Holder: a look at the constraints imposed by the Berne Convention’ (2011) 64 Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc 147.Google Scholar
Gervais, D., (Re)structuring Copyright: A Comprehensive Path to International Copyright Reform (Edward Elgar, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervais, D., ‘Towards a new core international norm: the reverse three-step test’ (2005) 9(1) Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 1.Google Scholar
Gervais, D., The TRIPs Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2003).Google Scholar
Gervais, D., (ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer, 2016).Google Scholar
Gervais, D. and Renaud, D., ‘The future of United States copyright formalities: why we should prioritize recordation, and how to do it’ (2013) 28 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1459.Google Scholar
Giblin, R. and Weatherall, K. (eds.), What If We Could Reimagine Copyright? (Australian National University Press, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J., ‘Once and future copyright’ (2005) 81 Notre Dame Law Review 167.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘“Une chose publique”? The author’s domain and the public domain in early British, French and US copyright law’, in Torremans, P. (ed.), Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar, 2007).Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘Copyright and control over new technologies of dissemination’ (2001) 101 Columbia Law Review 1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘Creation and commercial value: copyright protection of works of information’ (1990) 90 Columbia Law Review 1865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘Exceptional authorship: the role of copyright authorship in promoting creativity’, in Frankel, S. and Gervais, D. (eds.), Evolution and Equilibrium: Copyright this Century (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘From having copies to experiencing works: the development of an access right in US copyright law’ (2003) 50 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 113.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘Google Books and fair use: from implausible to inevitable?’ SociallyAware, 17 November 2015 www.sociallyawareblog.com/2015/11/17/google-books-and-fair-use-from-implausible-to-inevitable/.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘International copyright: from a “bundle” of national copyright laws to a supranational code’ (2000) 47 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 265.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘No “sweat”? Copyright and other protection of works of information after Feist v. Rural Telephone’ (1992) 92 Columbia Law Review 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘A tale of two copyrights: literary property in revolutionary France and America’ (1990) 64(5) Tulane Law Review 991; also in Sherman, B. and Strowel, A. (eds.), Of Authors and Origins: Essays in Copyright Law (Clarendon Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘Toward supranational copyright law? The WTO panel decision and the “three-step test” for copyright exceptions’ (2001) 187 Revue internationale du droit d’auteur 3.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘“With untired spirits and formal constancy”: Berne compatibility of formal declaratory measures to enhance copyright title-searching’ (2013) 28 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1583.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C. and Treppoz, E., International Copyright: US and EU Perspectives (Edward Elgar, 2015).Google Scholar
Goldstein, P., ‘Derivative rights and derivative works in copyright’ (1983) 30 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 209.Google Scholar
Goldstein, P., ‘Fair use in context’ (2008) 31 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 433.Google Scholar
Goldstein, P. and Hugenholtz, P. B., International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Gordon, W., ‘Authors, publishers, and public goods: trading gold for dross’ (2002) 36 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 159.Google Scholar
Gordon, W., ‘Excuse and justification in the law of fair use: commodification and market perspectives’, in Elkin-Koren, N. and Netanel, N. (eds.), The Commodification of Information (Kluwer Law International, 2002).Google Scholar
Gordon, W., ‘Fair use as market failure: a structural and economic analysis of the Betamax case and its predecessors’ (1982) 82(8) Columbia Law Review 1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, W., ‘On owning information: intellectual property and the restitutionary impulse’ (1992) 78 Virginia Law Review 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, R., ‘Fact or fancy? The implications for copyright’ (1982) 29 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 560.Google Scholar
Gotzen, F., ‘The right of destination in Europe’ (1989) 25 Copyright 218.Google Scholar
Government 2.0 Taskforce (Australia), ‘Engage: getting on with government 2.0’, Report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce (Australian Government, December 2009).Google Scholar
Government of Canada, Directive on Open Government (Canadian Government, 9 October 2014).Google Scholar
Gowers, A., Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (UK Government, December 2006).Google Scholar
Greenleaf, G., ‘Creating commons by friendly appropriation’ (2007) 4(1) SCRIPTed 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenleaf, G., ‘IP, phone home: privacy as part of copyright’s digital commons in Hong Kong and Australian law’, in Lessig, L. (ed.), Hochelaga Lectures 2002: The Innovation Commons (Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2003).Google Scholar
Greenleaf, G., ‘National and international dimensions of copyright’s public domain (an Australian case study)’ (2009) 6(2) SCRIPTed 259.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, G. and Bond, C., ‘“Public rights”, in copyright: what makes up Australia’s public domain?’ (2013) 23 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 111.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, G. and Bond, C., ‘Re-use rights and Australia’s unfinished PSI revolution’ (2011) 1(2) Informatica e diritto – Rivista internazionale 341.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, G., Mowbray, A. and Chung, P., ‘Building a commons for the common law – the Commonwealth Legal Information Institute (CommonLII) after four years’ progress’ (2010) 36(1) Commonwealth Law Bulletin 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenleaf, G., Paramaguru, A., Bond, C. and Christou, S., ‘Legal deposit’s role in the public domain’, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2008-38 (2008).Google Scholar
Griffiths, J., ‘Constitutionalising or harmonising? – the Court of Justice, the right to property and European copyright law’ (2013) 38 European Law Review 65.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J., ‘Copyright law after Ashdown – time to deal fairly with the public’ (2002) 3 Intellectual Property Quarterly 240.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J., ‘The United Kingdom’s public interest “defence” and European Union copyright law’, in Lee, N., Westkamp, G., Kurr, A. and Ohly, A. (eds.), Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity (Edward Elgar, 2014).Google Scholar
Guadamuz, A., ‘Comparative analysis of national approaches on voluntary copyright relinquishment’, Report presented to WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), 13th Session (2014).Google Scholar
Guadamuz, A., ‘Free and open source software’, in Edwards, L. and Waelde, C. (eds.), Law and the Internet (3rd edn, Hart, 2009).Google Scholar
Guadamuz, A., ‘The license/contract dichotomy in open licenses: a comparative analysis’ (2009) University of La Verne Law Review 30(2).Google Scholar
Guibault, L., Copyright Limitations and Contracts: An Analysis of the Contractual Overridability of Limitations on Copyright (Kluwer Law International, 2002).Google Scholar
Guibault, L., The Reprography Levies Across the European Union (Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, March 2003).Google Scholar
Guibault, L., ‘Why cherry-picking never leads to harmonisation: the case of the limitations on copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC’ (2010) 1 Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law (JIPITEC) 55.Google Scholar
Guibault, L., ‘Wrapping information in contract: how does it affect the public domain?’, in Guibault, L. and Hugenholtz, P. B. (eds.), The Future of the Public Domain: Identifying the Commons in Information Law (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar
Hardin, G., ‘The tragedy of the commons’ (1968) 162 Science 1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hargreaves, I., Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (Intellectual Property Office (UK), 2011).Google Scholar
Harnad, S., ‘The green road to open access: a leveraged transition’ (2004) http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/greenroad.html.Google Scholar
Hebl, A., ‘A heavy burden: proper application of copyright’s merger and scène à faire doctrines’ (2007) 8 Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal 128.Google Scholar
Helberger, N., Dufft, S., van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P. B., ‘Never forever: why extending the term of protection for sound recordings is a bad idea’ (2008) 30(5) European Intellectual Property Review 174.Google Scholar
Helfer, L., ‘Regime shifting: the TRIPs Agreement and the new dynamics of international intellectual property making’ (2004) 29 Yale Journal of International Law 1.Google Scholar
Helfer, L., ‘Regime shifting in the international intellectual property system’ (2009) 7(1) Perspectives on Politics 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M. and Eisenberg, R., ‘Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research’ (1998) 280 Science 698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herlt, K., ‘ACE survey on the implementation of the Orphan Works Directive’, Project FORWARD, 3 April 2015 http://project-forward.eu/2015/04/03/ace-survey-on-the-implementation-of-the-orphan-works-directive/.Google Scholar
Herman, A., ‘The year of living exceptionally: new copyright exceptions in UK law’ (2014) 19(4) Art Antiquity and Law 303.Google Scholar
Hess, C. and Ostrom, E., ‘Ideas, artefacts, and facilities: information as a common pool resource’ (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 111.Google Scholar
Hirtle, P., Hudson, E. and Kenyon, A., Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for US Libraries, Archives, and Museums (Cornell University Library, 2009).Google Scholar
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications (Australia), ‘At what cost? IT pricing and the Australia tax’ www.aphref.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ic/itpricing/report/fullreport.pdf.Google Scholar
Hudson, E., ‘Implementing fair use in copyright law’ (2013) 25 Intellectual Property Journal 201.Google Scholar
Hudson, E. and Burrell, R., ‘Abandonment, copyright and orphaned works: what does it mean to take the property nature of intellectual property rights seriously?’ (2011) 35 Melbourne University Law Review 971.Google Scholar
Hudson, E. and Kenyon, A., ‘Digital access: the impact of copyright on digitisation practices in Australian museums, galleries, libraries and archives’ (2007) 30(1) UNSW Law Journal 12.Google Scholar
Hugenholtz, P. B., ‘Caching and copyright: the right of temporary copying’ (2000) 22(10) European Intellectual Property Review 482.Google Scholar
Hugenholtz, P. B., ‘Copyright, contract and code: what will remain of the public domain’ (2000) 26 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 77.Google Scholar
Hugenholtz, P. B., ‘The dynamics of harmonization of copyright at the European level’, in Geiger, C. (ed.), Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives (Edward Elgar, 2013).Google Scholar
Hugenholtz, P. B., (ed.), The Future of Copyright in a Digital Environment (Kluwer Law International, 1996).Google Scholar
Hugenholtz, P. B., ‘Is harmonization a good thing? The case of the copyright acquis’, in Ohly, A. and Pila, J. (eds.), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Hugenholtz, P. B. and Senftleben, M., ‘Fair use in Europe. In search of flexibilities’, VU Centre for Law and Governance, Amsterdam http://ssrn.com/abstract=1959554.Google Scholar
Hugenholtz, P. B. and van Velze, S., ‘Communication to a new public? Three reasons why EU copyright law can do without a “new public”’ (2016) 47(7) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, J., ‘Created facts and the flawed ontology of copyright law’ (2007) 83 Notre Dame Law Review 43.Google Scholar
Hughes, J., ‘Locke’s 1694 Memorandum (and more incomplete copyright historiographies)’ (2010) 27 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 555.Google Scholar
Hughes, J., ‘Size matters (or should) in copyright law’ (2005) 74 Fordham Law Review 575.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. and Merges, R. P., ‘Copyright and distributive justice’ (2016) 92 Notre Dame Law Review 513.Google Scholar
Hunter, D., ‘American lessons: implementing fair use in Australia’ (2014) 24 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 192.Google Scholar
Intellectual Property Office (UK), ‘Consultation on reducing the duration of copyright in unpublished (“2039”) works in accordance with section 170(2)of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’ (IPO, 2014).Google Scholar
Intellectual Property Office (UK), ‘Exceptions to copyright: education and teaching’ (IPO, 2014).Google Scholar
Intellectual Property Office (UK), ‘Exceptions to copyright: guidance for creators and copyright owners’ (IPO, 2014).Google Scholar
Intellectual Property Office (UK), ‘Government response to the consultation on reducing the duration of copyright in certain unpublished works’ (IPO, 2015).Google Scholar
Intellectual Property Office (UK), ‘Orphan works diligent search guidance for applicants: guidance on searching for right holders in copyright works to obtain permission to reproduce the work’ (IPO, 2014).Google Scholar
Intellectual Property Office (UK), ‘Orphan works: review of the first twelve months’ (IPO, 2015).Google Scholar
International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), ‘Treaty proposal on copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives’, version 4.4 (IFLA, 6 December 2013).Google Scholar
Jacob, R., ‘Parody and IP claims: a defence?’, in Dreyfus, R. and Ginsburg, J. C. (eds.), Intellectual Property at the Edge: The Contested Contours of IP (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Jarrah, E., ‘Victory for the public: West Publishing loses its copyright battle over star pagination and compilation elements’ (2000) 25 University of Dayton Law Review 163.Google Scholar
Jaszi, P., ‘Public interest exceptions in copyright: a comparative and international perspective’, Paper presented to Correcting Course: Rebalancing Copyright for Libraries in the National and International Arena, Columbia University, 5–7 May 2005.Google Scholar
Jehoram, H., ‘The Dutch Supreme Court recognises copyright in the scent of a perfume. The Flying Dutchman: all sails, no anchor’ (2006) 28 European Intellectual Property Review 629.Google Scholar
Jehoram, H., ‘The EC Copyright Directives, economics and authors’ rights’ [1994] International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 821.Google Scholar
Johnson, P., ‘“Dedicating” copyright to the public domain’ (2008) 71 Modern Law Review 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M., ‘Eldred v. Ashcroft: the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act’ (2004) 19 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 85.Google Scholar
Jones, P., ‘The GPL is a License, not a Contract’, Linux Weekly News, 3 December 2003.Google Scholar
Jong, S., ‘Fair use in Korea’, Presentation at Australian Digital Alliance Copyright Forum, Canberra, 24 February 2017 http://infojustice.org/archives/37819.Google Scholar
Judge, E., ‘Crown copyright and copyright reform in Canada’, in Geist, M. (ed.), In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin Law, 2005).Google Scholar
Judge, E. and Gervais, D., ‘Of silos and constellations: comparing notions of originality in copyright law’ (2009) 27 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 375.Google Scholar
Kamina, P., ‘Authorship of films and implementation of the Term Directive: the dramatic tale of two copyrights’ [1994] European Intellectual Property Review 319.Google Scholar
Kamina, P., ‘British film copyright and the incorrect implementation of the EC Copyright Directives’ [1998] Entertainment Law Review 109.Google Scholar
Kaplan, B., An Unhurried View of Copyright (Columbia University Press, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karapapa, S., ‘Reconstructing copyright exhaustion in the online world’ (2014) 4 Intellectual Property Quarterly 307.Google Scholar
Karjala, D., ‘Federal preemption of shrinkwrap and online licenses’ (1997) 22 University of Dayton Law Review 511.Google Scholar
Karjala, D., ‘Judicial review of copyright term extension legislation’ (2002) 36 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 199.Google Scholar
Karp, I., ‘Final report, Berne Article 18 study on retroactive United States copyright protection for Berne and other works’ (1996) 20 Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 157.Google Scholar
Kasunic, R., ‘Is that all there is? Reflections on the nature of the second fair use factor’ (2008) 31(4) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 529.Google Scholar
Katz, A., ‘Everything open’, in Shemtov, N. and Walden, I. (eds.), Free and Open Source Software: Policy Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Katz, A., ‘Fair use 2.0: the rebirth of fair dealing in Canada’, in Geist, M. (ed.), The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (University of Ottawa Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Ketzan, E., ‘Rebuilding Babel: copyright and the future of machine translation online’ Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, Spring 2007.Google Scholar
Koelman, K., ‘Fixing the three-step test’ (2006) 28 European Intellectual Property Review 407.Google Scholar
Koelman, K., ‘A hard nut to crack: the protection of technological measures’ (2000) 22 European Intellectual Property Review 272.Google Scholar
Koelman, K., ‘The public domain commodified: technological measures and productive information use’, in Guibault, L. and Hugenholtz, P. B. (eds.), The Future of the Public Domain: Identifying the Commons in Information Law (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar
Koskinen-Olsson, T. and Sigurdardóttir, V., ‘Collective management in the Nordic countries’, in Gervais, D. (ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer, 2016).Google Scholar
Krasilovsky, M., ‘Observations on the public domain’ (1967) 14 Bulletin of the Copyright Society 205.Google Scholar
Kretschmer, M., Derclaye, E., Favale, F. and Watt, R., ‘The relationship between copyright and contract law’, Research commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (UK) (2010) http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/16091/1/_contractlaw-report.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurlantzick, L. and Pennino, J., ‘The Audio Home Recording Act and the formation of copyright policy’ (1998) 45 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 497.Google Scholar
Ladas, S., The International Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (The Macmillan Company, 1938).Google Scholar
Laddie, H., Prescott, P. and Vitoria, M., The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (Butterworths, 1980).Google Scholar
Laddie, H., Prescott, P. and Vitoria, M., The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (2nd edn, Butterworths, 1995).Google Scholar
Laddie, H., Prescott, P., Vitoria, M., Speck, A. and Lane, L., The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (3rd edn, Butterworths, 2000).Google Scholar
Landes, W. and Posner, R., ‘Indefinitely renewable copyright’ (2003) 70 University of Chicago Law Review 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, D., ‘Recognizing the public domain’ (1981) 44(4) Law and Contemporary Problems 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, D., ‘Reimagining the public domain’ (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 463.Google Scholar
Lape, L., ‘The metaphysics of the law: bringing substantial similarity down to earth’ (1994) 98 Dickinson Law Review 181.Google Scholar
Latman, A., ‘“Probative similarity” as proof of copying: toward dispelling some myths in copyright infringement’ (1990) 90 Columbia Law Review 1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E., ‘The public’s domain: the evolution of legal restraints on the Government’s power to control public access through secrecy or intellectual property’ (2003) 55 Hastings Law Journal 91.Google Scholar
Lee, J., ‘Licensing open government data’ (2017) 13(2) Hastings Business Law Journal 207.Google Scholar
Lemley, M., ‘Beyond preemption: the law and policy of intellectual property licensing’ (1999) 87 California Law Review 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemley, M., ‘Faith-based intellectual property’ (2015) 62 UCLA Law Review 1328.Google Scholar
Lessig, L., ‘The architecture of innovation’ (2002) 51 Duke Law Journal 1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessig, L., Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (Penguin USA, 2004).Google Scholar
Lessig, L., The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (Random House, 2001).Google Scholar
Lessig, L., ‘Re-crafting a public domain’ (2006) 18 Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 56.Google Scholar
Leval, P., ‘Toward a fair use standard’ (1990) 103 Harvard Law Review 1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, R., ‘Access Copyright: Addressing the needs and concerns of both creators and users in a changing copyright environment’.Google Scholar
Li, Y., ‘China’, in Geller, P., Nimmer, M. and Bently, L. (eds.), International Copyright Law and Practice (LexisNexis, 2016).Google Scholar
Li, Y. and Greenleaf, G., ‘China’s copyright public domain: a comparison with Australia’ (2017) 27(3) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 34.Google Scholar
Liang, L., ‘Exceptions and limitations in Indian copyright law for education: an assessment’ (2010) 3 Law and Development Review 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Library of Congress, ‘Section 108: Draft Revision of the Library and Archives Exceptions in US Copyright Law’, Federal Register 81(109) (7 June 2016).Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S., ‘A critique of copyright’s criticisms’ (2015) 22(4) George Mason Law Review 943.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. and Margolis, S., ‘Seventeen famous economists weigh in on copyright: the role of theory, empirics, and network effects’ (2005) 18(2) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 435.Google Scholar
Lindgren, K., ‘The jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia: the 2006 Amendments’ (2007) 70 Intellectual Property Forum: Journal of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of Australia and New Zealand.Google Scholar
Lindsay, D., ‘Copyright and freedom of expression’, in Bowrey, K., Handler, M. and Nicol, D. (eds.), Emerging Challenges in Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Lindsay, D., The Law and Economics of Copyright, Contract and Mass Market Licences (Centre for Copyright Studies Ltd, 2002).Google Scholar
Lindsay, D., ‘Protection of compilations and databases after IceTV: authorship, originality and the transformation of Australian copyright law’ (2012) 38(1) Monash University Law Review 17.Google Scholar
Litman, J., ‘The exclusive right to read’ (1994) 13 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 29.Google Scholar
Litman, J., ‘Lawful personal use’ (2007) 85 Texas Law Review 1871.Google Scholar
Litman, J., ‘The public domain’ (1990) 39(4) Emory Law Journal 965.Google Scholar
Liu, D., ‘Meltwater melts not water but principle! The danger of the court adjudicating an issue without the ambit of referral’ (2013) 35(6) European Intellectual Property Review 327.Google Scholar
Lopez, M., ‘CJEU ruling in Doke & Soulier case emphasizes the need for a real solution to the out-of-commerce problem’, COMMUNIA, 23 November 2016 www.communia-association.org/2016/11/23/cjeu-ruling-doke-soulier-case-emphasizes-need-real-solution-commerce-problem/.Google Scholar
Loren, L., ‘Building a reliable semicommons of creative works: enforcement of creative commons licenses and limited abandonment of copyright’ (2007) 14 George Mason Law Review 271.Google Scholar
Loren, L., ‘Fair use: an affirmative defense?’ (2015) 90 Washington Law Review 685.Google Scholar
Loren, L., ‘Fixation as notice in copyright’ (2016) 96 Boston University Law Review 939.Google Scholar
Lucas-Schloetter, A., ‘Is there a concept of European copyright law? History, evolution, policies and politics and the Acquis Communautaire’, in Stamatoudi, I. and Torremans, P. (eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (Edward Elgar, 2016).Google Scholar
Lui, J., ‘Regulatory copyright’ (2004) 83 North Carolina Law Review 87.Google Scholar
McCutcheon, J., ‘Digital access to culture: copyright in photographs of two-dimensional art under Australian copyright law’ (2017) 7 (4) Queen Mary Intellectual Property Journal 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCutcheon, J., ‘The new defence of parody or satire under Australian copyright law’ [2008] Intellectual Property Quarterly 163.Google Scholar
McCutcheon, J., ‘The vanishing author in computer-generated works: a critical analysis of recent Australian case law’ (2013) 36 Melbourne University Law Review 915.Google Scholar
McCutcheon, J. and Holloway, S., ‘Whose fair dealing? Third party reliance on the fair dealing exception for parody or satire’ (2016) 27(2) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 53.Google Scholar
McDonagh, L., ‘Copyright, contract and FOSS’, in Shemtov, N. and Walden, I. (eds.), Free and Open Source Software: Policy Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
McQueen, H., Waelde, C., Laurie, G. and Brown, A., Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Madison, M., ‘Rewriting fair use and the future of copyright reform’ (2005) 23 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 391.Google Scholar
Maeir, H., ‘German Federal Court of Justice rules on parody and free use’ (2017) 12(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J., ‘Lawrence Lessig’s dystopian vision’ (2004) 90 Villanova Law Review 2305.Google Scholar
Margoni, T., ‘The digitization of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs’, University of Glasgow, CREATe, 3 December 2014 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2573104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S., ‘The mythology of the public domain: exploring the myths behind attacks on the duration of copyright protection’ 36 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 253 (2002).Google Scholar
Meeker, H., The Open Source Alternative: Understanding and Leveraging Opportunities (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).Google Scholar
Mehra, S., ‘Copyright and comics in Japan: does law explain why all the cartoons my kid watches are Japanese imports?’ (2002) 55 Rutgers Law Review.Google Scholar
Mendis, D. and Stobo, V., ‘UK: extended collective licensing’, Kluwer copyright blog, 3 December 2014 http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2014/12/03/uk-extended-collective-licensing/.Google Scholar
Mendis, D. and Kretschmer, M., The Treatment of Parodies under Copyright Law in Seven Jurisdictions: A Comparative Review of the Underlying Principles (Intellectual Property Office (UK), 2013).Google Scholar
Menell, P., ‘In search of copyright’s lost ark: interpreting the right to distribute in the Internet age’ (2011) 59 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 1.Google Scholar
Merges, R. P., ‘Contracting into liability rules: intellectual property rights and collective rights organizations’ (1996) 84(5) California Law Review 1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merges, R. P., ‘The end of friction? Property rights and contract in the “Newtonian” world of online commerce’ (1997) 12 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 115.Google Scholar
Merges, R. P., Justifying Intellectual Property (Harvard University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merges, R. P., ‘A new dynamism in the public domain’ (2004) 71 University of Chicago Law Review 183.Google Scholar
Merges, R. P., ‘One hundred years of solicitude: intellectual property law, 1900–2000’ (2000) 88 California Law Review 2187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mewhort, K., ‘Creative Commons Licenses: options for Canadian open data providers’, Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), 1 June 2012 https://cippic.ca.Google Scholar
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology (India), ‘Policy on adoption of open source software for Government of India’, 2014 http://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf.Google Scholar
Mitchell, I., ‘Public sector and open source’, in Shemtov, N. and Walden, I. (eds.), Free and Open Source Software: Policy Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Moglen, E., ‘Enforcing the GNU GPL’, GNU Operating System, 10 September 2001 www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html.Google Scholar
Monotti, A., ‘Nature and basis of Crown Copyright in official publications’ (1992) 9 European Intellectual Property Review 305.Google Scholar
Morley, J., ‘The unfettered expansion of appropriation art protection by the fair use doctrine: searching for transformativeness in Cariou v. Prince and beyond’ (2015) 55 IDEA 385.Google Scholar
The National Archives (UK), ‘UK Government Licensing Framework’ (UKGLF) www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/uk-government-licensing-framework/.Google Scholar
National Copyright Administration China, ‘Reply of the NCAC to the Inquiry from Hainan Provincial Copyright Administration Regarding the Issues of Copyright Licenses China’, No. 22, 4 June 2003 www.ncac.gov.cn/.Google Scholar
National Library of Australia, ‘Deposit of electronic publications with the National Library of Australia: Guide to requirements for publishers’ (June 2016).Google Scholar
Netanel, N., ‘Locating copyright within the First Amendment skein’ (2001) 54 Stanford Law Review 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netanel, N., ‘Making sense of fair use’ (2011) 15(3) Lewis & Clark Law Review 715.Google Scholar
Nimmer, D., ‘“Fairest of them all” and other fairy tales of fair use’ (2003) 66 Law & Contemporary Problems 263.Google Scholar
Nimmer, D., Brown, E., and Frischling, G. N., ‘The metamorphosis of contract into expand’ (1999) 87 California Law Review 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimmer, M., ‘Does copyright abridge the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and press?’ (1970) 17 UCLA Law Review 1180.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, M., ‘Copyright preemption after the ProCD case: a market-based approach’ (1997) 12 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 53.Google Scholar
Ocasio, S., ‘Pruning paracopyright protection: why courts should apply the merger and scène à faire doctrines at the copyrightability stage of the copyright infringement analysis’ (2006) 3 Seton Hall Circuit Review 303.Google Scholar
Ochoa, T., ‘Origins and meanings of the public domain’ (2003) 28(2) University of Dayton Law Review 215.Google Scholar
Ochoa, T., ‘Protection of works of foreign origin under the 1909 Copyright Act’ (2010) 26 Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 285.Google Scholar
Ohly, A., ‘Economic rights’, in Ohly, A. and Derclaye, E. (eds.), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (Edward Elgar, 2009).Google Scholar
Ohly, A., ‘European fundamental rights and intellectual property’, in Ohly, A. and Pila, J. (eds.), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Oliver, J., ‘Copyright in the WTO: the panel decision on the three-step test’ (2002) 25 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 119.Google Scholar
Open Source Initiative, ‘The Open Source Definition’ (2007) https://opensource.org/osd.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallente, M., ‘The curious case of copyright formalities’ (2013) 28 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1415.Google Scholar
Parliament of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT), ‘The Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement’ (June 2004).Google Scholar
Patry, W., ‘Choice of law and international copyright’ (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patry, W., The Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law (2nd edn, Bureau of National Affairs, 1995).Google Scholar
Patterson, L. Ray, ‘Folsom v. Marsh and its legacy’ (1998) 5 Journal of Intellectual Property Law 431.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. Ray and Joyce, C., ‘Monopolizing the law: the scope of copyright protection for law reports and statutory compilations’ (1989) 36 UCLA Law Review 719.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. Ray and Lindberg, S., The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users’ Rights (University of Georgia Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Pearce, D. and Geddes, R., Statutory Interpretation in Australia (4th edn, Butterworths, 1996).Google Scholar
Perzanowski, A. and Schultz, J., ‘Digital exhaustion’ (2011) 58 UCLA Law Review 889.Google Scholar
Perzanowski, A. and Schultz, J., ‘Legislating digital exhaustion’ (2014) 29 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1535.Google Scholar
Pessach, G., ‘The new Israeli Copyright Act: a case-study in reverse comparative law’ (2010) 41 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 187.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., ‘Copyright in obscene works: some British and American problems’ (1977) 6 Anglo-American Law Review 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, J. and Bently, L., ‘Copyright issues: the mysteries of section 18’ (1999) 21(3) European Intellectual Property Review 133.Google Scholar
Pila, J., ‘Copyright and its categories of original works’ (2010) 30(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilch, J., ‘Fair use and beyond: the status of copyright limitations and exceptions in the Commonwealth of Independent States’ (2004) 65(6) College & Research Libraries 468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poitraut, J.-L., ‘An authors’ rights-based copyright law: the fairness and morality of French and American law compared’ (2006) 24 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 549.Google Scholar
Posner, R., ‘The constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act: economics, politics, law, and judicial technique in Eldred v. Ashcroft’ (2003) 4 Supreme Court Review 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Productivity Commission (Aus.), ‘Intellectual property arrangements’, Report 78 (23 September 2016).Google Scholar
Qingjiang, K., ‘The doctrine of Ordre public and the Sino–US copyright dispute’, Society of International Economic Law, Online Proceedings Working Paper No. 07/08 (on SSRN) (17 June 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, M., ‘Humans, computers and binding commitment’ (2000) 75 Indiana Law Journal 1125.Google Scholar
Rahmatian, A., Copyright and Creativity. The Making of Property Rights in Creative Works (Edward Elgar, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahmatian, A., ‘Originality in UK copyright law: the old “skill and labour” doctrine under pressure’ (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reece, R., ‘The first sale doctrine in the era of digital networks’ (2003) 44 Boston College Law Review 577.Google Scholar
Reichman, J. and Uhler, P., ‘A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment’ (2003) 66 Law & Contemporary Problems 315.Google Scholar
Reid, A., ‘Claiming the copyright’ (2016) 34 Yale Law and Policy Review 425.Google Scholar
Reinbothe, J. and von Lewinski, S., The WIPO Treaties 1996 (Butterworths/LexisNexis, 2002).Google Scholar
Resnik, D., ‘A pluralistic account of intellectual property’ (2003) 46 Journal of Business Ethics 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, G., ‘The limits of statutory interpretation: towards explicit engagement, by the Supreme Court of Canada, with the Charter Right to freedom of expression in the context of copyright’ (2016) 41 Queen’s Law Journal 455.Google Scholar
Rice, D., ‘Public goods, private contract, and public policy: federal preemption of software license prohibitions against reverse engineering’ (1992) 53 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 543.Google Scholar
Richards, N., ‘Intellectual privacy’ (2008) 87 Texas Law Review 387.Google Scholar
Richardson, M., ‘Freedom of political discussion and intellectual property law in Australia’ (1997) 11 European Intellectual Property Review 631.Google Scholar
Ricketson, S., ‘The birth of the Berne Union’ (1986) 9 Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 11.Google Scholar
Ricketson, S., ‘The copyright term’ (1992) 23 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 753.Google Scholar
Ricketson, S., The Law of Intellectual Property (The Law Book Company Limited, 1984).Google Scholar
Ricketson, S., ‘Reaping without sowing: unfair competition and intellectual property rights in Anglo-Australian law’ (1984) 7 UNSW Law Journal 1.Google Scholar
Ricketson, S., ‘WIPO study on limitations and exceptions of copyright and related rights in the digital environment’, WIPO SCCR, Ninth Session, Geneva, 23–27 June 2003.Google Scholar
Ricketson, S. and Creswell, C., The Law of Intellectual Property: Copyright, Designs and Confidential Information (2nd rev. edn, Thomson Legal & Regulatory, 1999, ongoing electronic resource).Google Scholar
Ricketson, S. and Ginsburg, J. C., International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Ricoli, M., Morando, F., Rubiano, C., Hsu, S., Ouma, M. and de Martin, J. C., ‘Survey of private copyright documentation systems and practices’, WIPO, 2011 www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/meetings/en/2011/wipo_cr_doc_ge_11/pdf/survey_private_crdocystems.pdf.Google Scholar
Riis, T. and Schovsbo, J., ‘Extended collective licenses and the Nordic experience: it’s a hybrid but is it a Volvo or a lemon?’ (2010) 33(4) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 471.Google Scholar
Rosati, E., ‘The CJEU decision in Soulier: what does it mean for laws other than the French one on out-of-print books?’, The IPKat, 17 November 2016 http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/the-cjeu-decision-in-soulier-what-does.html.Google Scholar
Rosati, E., ‘Copyright in the EU: in search of (in)flexibilities’ (2014) 9(7) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosati, E., ‘Just a laughing matter? Why the decision in Deckmyn is broader than parody’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosati, E., ‘Originality in a work, or a work of originality: the effects of the Infopaq decision’ (2011) 33(12) European Intellectual Property Review 746.Google Scholar
Rose, C., ‘The comedy of the commons: custom, commerce, and inherently public property’ (1986) 53 University of Chicago Law Review 711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M., ‘Nine-tenths of the law: the English copyright debates and the rhetoric of the public domain’ (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 75.Google Scholar
Rosen, A., ‘Reconsidering the idea/expression dichotomy’ (1992) UBC Law Review 263.Google Scholar
Rosen, L., Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law (Prentice Hall, 2004).Google Scholar
Rosen, L., ‘Why the public domain is not a license’, Rosenlaw & Einschlag website, 2004 www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., ‘Best intentions: reconsidering best practices statements in the context of fair use and copyright law’ (2010) 57 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 371.Google Scholar
Rothnie, W., ‘Moral rights: consents and waivers?’ (2002) 20 Copyright Reporter 145.Google Scholar
Saez, C., ‘Copyright exceptions for libraries: WIPO should step up before someone else does’, Intellectual Property Watch, 12 December 2014.Google Scholar
Sag, M., ‘Predicting fair use’ (2012) 73 Ohio State Law Journal 47.Google Scholar
Sag, M., ‘The prehistory of fair use’ (2011) 76(4) Brooklyn Law Review 1371.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M., ‘Parody, satire and copyright infringement: the latest addition to Australian fair dealing law’ (2007) 12 Media and Arts Law Review 292.Google Scholar
Samuels, E., ‘The idea–expression dichotomy in copyright law’ (1989) 56 Tennessee Law Review 321.Google Scholar
Samuels, E., ‘The public domain in copyright law’ (1993) 41 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 137.Google Scholar
Samuels, E., ‘The public domain revisited’ (2002) 36 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 389.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Challenges in mapping the public domain’, in Guibault, L. and Hugenholtz, P. B. (eds.), The Future of the Public Domain: Identifying the Commons in Information Law (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Copyright and freedom of expression in historical perspective’ (2002) 10 Journal of Intellectual Property Law 319.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘The Copyright Principles Project: directions for reform’ (2010) 25 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1175.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Enriching discourse on public domains’ (2006) 55 Duke Law Journal 783.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Intellectual property and the digital economy: why the anti-circumvention regulations need to be revised’ (1999) 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 519.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Mapping the digital public domain: threats and opportunities’ (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 147.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Possible futures of fair use’ (2015) 90 Washington Law Review 815.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Preliminary thoughts on copyright reform’ (2007) Utah Law Review 551.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘The quest for a sound conception of copyright’s derivative work right’ (2013) 101 Georgetown Law Journal 1505.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘The US Digital Agenda at WIPO’ (1997) 37 Virginia Journal of International Law 369.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Unbundling fair uses’ (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2537.Google Scholar
Schellekens, M., ‘Free and open source software: an answer to commodification’, in Guibault, L. and Hugenholtz, P. B. (eds.), The Future of the Public Domain: Identifying the Commons in Information Law (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar
Senftleben, M., Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test: An Analysis of the Three-Step Test in International and EC Copyright Law (Kluwer Law International, 2004).Google Scholar
Seng, D., ‘Comparative analysis of the national approaches to the liability of internet intermediaries’ (preliminary version) (WIPO, 2010).Google Scholar
Seng, D., ‘Study on copyright limitations and exceptions for educational activities’, WIPO SCCR, SCCR/33/6, 9 November 2016.Google Scholar
Seville, C., ‘Copyright in perfumes: smelling a rat’ [2007] Cambridge Law Journal 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seville, C., EU Intellectual Property Law and Policy (Edward Elgar, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, G., ‘The new realist approach to international law’ (2015) 28(2) Leiden Journal of International Law 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shemtov, N., ‘FOSS license: bare license or contract’, Centre for Commercial Law Studies Queen Mary University of London presentation https://web.ua.es/es/contratos-id/documentos/itipupdate2011/shemtov.pdf.Google Scholar
Shemtov, N. and Walden, I. (eds.), Free and Open Source Software: Policy Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Singh, R. et al., Iyengar’s Commentary on The Copyright Act (7th edn, Universal Law Publishing Company, 2010).Google Scholar
Sites, B., ‘Fair use and the new transformative’ (2016) 39(4) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 514.Google Scholar
Snow, N., ‘The forgotten right of fair use’ (2011) 62(1) Case Western Law Review 135.Google Scholar
Solove, D., ‘Conceptualizing privacy’ (2002) 90 California Law Review 1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, S., ‘Reevaluating fair use in China – a comparative copyright analysis of Chinese fair use legislation, the US fair use doctrine, and the European fair dealing model’ (2011) 51 IDEA 453.Google Scholar
Spies, A., ‘Revering irreverance: a fair dealing exception for both weapon and target parodies’ (2011) 34(3) UNSW Law Journal 1122.Google Scholar
Sprigman, C., ‘Reform(alizing) copyright’ (2004) 57 Stanford Law Review 485.Google Scholar
Stallman, R., ‘Why open source misses the point of free software’, GNU Operating System, undated www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html.Google Scholar
Stanfield, B., ‘Finding the fact of familiarity: assessing judicial similarity tests in copyright infringement actions’ (2001) 49 Drake Law Review 489.Google Scholar
Stanganelli, M., ‘Spreading the news online: a fine balance of copyright and freedom of expression in news aggregation’ (2012) 34(11) European Intellectual Property Review 745.Google Scholar
State Council (China), ‘Explanation of the “Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China” (submission version of the revised draft)’, 6 June 2014 (unofficial translation by Rogier Creemers, 18 June 2014).Google Scholar
Sterling, J. A. L. and Cook, T., Sterling on World Copyright (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2015).Google Scholar
Stewart, A., Griffith, P., Bannister, J. and Liberman, A., Intellectual Property in Australia (5th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2014).Google Scholar
Strong, W., The Copyright Book: A Practical Guide (6th edn, MIT Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strowel, A., ‘Droit d’auteur and copyright: between history and nature’, in Sherman, B. and Strowel, A. (eds.), Of Authors and Origins: Essays on Copyright Law (Clarendon Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Strowel, A., ‘Towards a European copyright law: four issues to consider’, in Stamatoudi, I. and Torremans, P. (eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (Edward Elgar, 2016).Google Scholar
Strowel, A. and Kim, H., ‘The balancing impact of general EU law on European intellectual property jurisprudence’, in Ohly, A. and Pila, J. (eds.), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Suber, P., ‘Open access overview’ (2013, updated periodically) https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm.Google Scholar
Suthersanen, U., ‘The first global Copyright Act’, in Suthersanen, U. and Gendreau, Y. (eds.), A Shifting Empire: 100 Years of the Copyright Act 1911 (Edward Elgar, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, G., Copyright and the Public Interest in China (Edward Elgar, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taubman, A., ‘The public domain and international intellectual property treaties’, in Waelde, C. and McQueen, H. (eds.), Intellectual Property: The Many Faces of the Public Domain (Edward Elgar, 2007).Google Scholar
Tawfik, M., ‘History in the balance: copyright and access to knowledge’, in Geist, M. (ed.), In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin Law, 2005).Google Scholar
Townsend-Gard, E., ‘In the trenches with §104A: an evaluation of the parties’ arguments in Golan v. Holder as it heads to the Supreme Court’ (2011) 64 Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc 199.Google Scholar
Townsend-Gard, E., ‘January 1, 2003: the birth of the unpublished public domain and its international implications’ (2006) 24 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 687.Google Scholar
Trosow, S., ‘Fair dealing practices in the post-secondary education sector after the pentalogy’, in Geist, M. (ed.), The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (University of Ottawa Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Turetsky, M. W., ‘Applying copyright abandonment to the digital age’ (2010) 19 Duke Law & Technology Review 22.Google Scholar
Urban, J. M., Karaganis, J. and Schofield, B. L., Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice, version 2 (American Assembly, 2017).Google Scholar
US Copyright Office, Library of Congress, ‘Copyright protection not available for names, titles or short phrases’, Circular No. 34 (United States Copyright Office, 2006).Google Scholar
US Copyright Office, Library of Congress, ‘International Copyright Relations of the United States’ Circular 38 A (United States Copyright Office, 2017) www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf.Google Scholar
US Copyright Office, Library of Congress, ‘Legal issues in mass digitization: a preliminary analysis and discussion document’ (United States Copyright Office, 2011) www.copyright.gov/docs/massdigitization/USCOMassDigitization_October2011.pdf.Google Scholar
US Copyright Office, Library of Congress, ‘Orphan works and mass digitization: a report of the Register of Copyrights’ (United States Copyright Office, 2015).Google Scholar
US Copyright Office, Library of Congress, ‘Report on orphan works: a report of the Register of Copyrights’ (United States Copyright Office, 2006).Google Scholar
US Copyright Office, Library of Congress, ‘Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians’ Circular 21 (United States Copyright Office, undated) www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf.Google Scholar
van Gompel, S., ‘Formalities in the digital era: an obstacle or opportunity?’, in Bently, L. et al. (eds.), Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, From 1709 to Cyberspace (Edward Elgar, 2010).Google Scholar
van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P. B., ‘The orphan works problem: the copyright conundrum of digitizing large-scale audiovisual archives, and how to solve it’ (2010) 8(1) Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varian, H., ‘Copyright term extension and orphan works’ (2006) 15(6) Industrial and Corporate Change 965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan-Nichols, S., ‘It’s an open-source world: 78 percent of companies run open-source software’, ZDNet, 16 April 2016 www.zdnet.com/article/its-an-open-source-world-78-percent-of-companies-run-open-source-software/.Google Scholar
Vaver, D., ‘Copyright defenses as user rights’ (2013) 60 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 661.Google Scholar
Vaver, D., Copyright Law (Irwin, 2000).Google Scholar
Vinelli, R., ‘Bringing down the walls: how technology is being used to thwart parallel importers amid the international confusion concerning exhaustion of rights’ (2009) 17(1) Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 101.Google Scholar
Vise, D., The Google Story (Macmillan, 2005).Google Scholar
von Haller, M., ‘Enforcement of open source licenses?’ Digital Business Law (Bird & Bird, 24 January 2017).Google Scholar
von Lewinski, S., ‘Introduction’, in Walter, M. M. and von Lewinski, S. (eds.), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
von Lewinski, S., ‘Rental and lending rights directive’, in Walter, M. M. and von Lewinski, S. (eds.), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
von Lewinski, S., ‘Status of harmonization: limitations of rights’, in Walter, M. M. and von Lewinski, S. (eds.), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
von Lewinski, S. and Walter, M. M., ‘Information society directive’, in Walter, M. M. and von Lewinski, S. (eds.), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Vousden, S., Infopaq and the Europeanisation of copyright law’ (2010) 1(2) WIPO Journal 197.Google Scholar
Walden, I., ‘Open Source as philosophy, methodology and commerce: using law with attitude’, in Shemtov, N. and Walden, I. (eds.), Free and Open Source Software: Policy Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Depoorter, B., ‘Unavoidable aesthetic judgments in copyright law: a community of practice standard’ (2015) 109(2) Northwestern University Law Review 343.Google Scholar
Walter, M. M., ‘Fundamental rights’, in Walter, M. M. and von Lewinski, S. (eds.), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Walter, M. M., ‘Term directive’, in Walter, M. M. and von Lewinski, S. (eds.), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Walter, M. M. and von Lewinski, S. (eds.), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Weatherall, K., ‘Internet intermediaries and copyright: an Australian agenda for reform’, Policy paper prepared for Australian Digital Alliance, April 2011 www.digital.org.au/our-work/publication/internet-intermediaries-and-copyright-australian-agenda-reform.Google Scholar
White, A., ‘The copyright tree: using German moral rights as the roots for enhanced authorship protection in the United States’ (2010) 9(1) Loyola Law and Technology Annual 30.Google Scholar
White, E., ‘The Berne Convention’s flexible fixation requirement: a problematic provision for user-generated content’ (2013) 13(2) Chicago Journal of International Law 685.Google Scholar
WIPO, ‘Limitations and exceptions’ (WIPO, various dates) www.wipo.int/copyright/en/limitations/.Google Scholar
WIPO, ‘Summary of the responses to the questionnaire for survey on copyright registration and deposit systems’ (WIPO, 2010) www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/registration/pdf/legal_deposit_summary_responses.pdf and www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/registration/pdf/registration_summary_responses.pdfGoogle Scholar
WIPO SCCR, ‘The case for a treaty on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives: background paper by IFLA, ICA, EIFL and INNOVARTE’, Document presented by Brazil, WIPO Doc. SCCR/23/3 (18 November 2011).Google Scholar
WIPO SCCR, ‘Draft WIPO Treaty on exceptions and limitations for the disabled, educational and research institutions, libraries and archive centers’, Proposal by the African Group, SCCR/20/11 (15 June 2010).Google Scholar
WIPO SCCR, ‘Objectives and principles for exceptions and limitations for educational, teaching, and research institutions’, Submitted by the United States of America, SCCR/27/8 (26 May 2014).Google Scholar
WIPO SCCR, ‘Objectives and principles for exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives’, Document presented by the United States of America, WIPO Doc SCCR/26/8 (10 January 2014).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L., Philosophical Investigations, tr. Anscomb, G. (3rd edn, Blackwell, 1973).Google Scholar
WTO Panel Report, ‘China: measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights’, WT/DS-362/R (26 January 2009).Google Scholar
Wu, T., ‘Tolerated use’ (2007–8) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 617.Google Scholar
Xalabarder, R., ‘Study on copyright limitations and exceptions for educational activities in North America, Europe, Caucasus, Central Asia and Israel’, WIPO SCCR, Nineteenth Session, SCCR/19/8 (Geneva, 14–18 December 2009).Google Scholar
Yen, A., ‘Eldred, the First Amendment, and aggressive copyright claims’ (2003) 40(3)Houston Law Review 673.Google Scholar
Yong, W., ‘Copyright limitation for the benefit of poverty alleviation: is Chinese copyright provision to be a model for developing countries?’ (2015) 3 China Legal Science 129.Google Scholar
Yu, P., ‘The US–China dispute over TRIPS enforcement’, in Antons, C. (ed.), The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: Comparative Perspectives from the Asia-Pacific Region (Kluwer Law International, 2011).Google Scholar
Zeinstra, M., ‘Research: Orphan Works Directive does not work for mass digitisation’, COMMUNIA, 16 February 2016 www.communia-association.org/2016/02/16/orphan-works-directive-does-not-work/.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D., ‘Is there a right to have something to say? One view of the public domain’ (2004) 73 Fordham Law Review 297.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D., ‘It’s an original! (?) In pursuit of copyright’s elusive essence’ (2005) 28 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 187.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Graham Greenleaf, University of New South Wales, Sydney, David Lindsay, University of Technology Sydney
  • Book: Public Rights
  • Online publication: 07 June 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316460214.020
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Graham Greenleaf, University of New South Wales, Sydney, David Lindsay, University of Technology Sydney
  • Book: Public Rights
  • Online publication: 07 June 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316460214.020
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Graham Greenleaf, University of New South Wales, Sydney, David Lindsay, University of Technology Sydney
  • Book: Public Rights
  • Online publication: 07 June 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316460214.020
Available formats
×