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