38 results
Using objective clinical metrics to understand the relationship between the electronic health record and physician well-being: observational pilot study
- Matthew J. Mosquera, Heather Burrell Ward, Christopher Holland, Robert Boland, John Torous
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 7 / Issue 5 / September 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 September 2021, e174
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Electronic health records (EHRs) are a significant contributor to physicians’ low satisfaction, reduced engagement and increased burnout. Yet the majority of evidence around EHR and physician harms is based on self-reported screen time, which may both over- and underreport actual exposure.
AimsThe purpose of this study was to examine how objective EHR use correlates with physician well-being and to develop preliminary recommendations for well-being-based EHR interventions.
MethodPrior to the onset of COVID-19, psychiatry residents and attending physicians working in an out-patient clinic at an academic medical centre provided consent for access to EHR-usage logs and completed a well-being assessment made up of three scales: the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Urecht Work Engagement Scale and the Professional Quality of Life Measure. Survey responses and objective EHR data were analysed with descriptive statistics.
ResultsResponses were obtained from 20 psychiatry residents (total eligible residents n = 27; 74% participation) and 16 clinical faculty members (total eligible faculty n = 24; 67% participation) with an overall response rate of 71% (total eligible residents and faculty n = 51 and total residents and faculty who completed survey n = 36). Moderate correlations for multiple well-being domains emerged in analysis for all participants, especially around the time spent per note and patient visits closed the same day.
ConclusionsEHR-usage logs represent an objective tool in the evaluation and enhancement of physician well-being. Results from our pilot study suggest that metrics for note writing efficiency and closing patient visits the same day are associated with physician well-being. These metrics will be important to study in ongoing efforts involving well-being-based EHR interventions.
9 - The Changing Judicial Politics of Copyright Exceptions in the UK
- from Part III - Models of Copyright Exceptions
- Edited by Shyamkrishna Balganesh, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Ng-Loy Wee Loon, Haochen Sun
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
- Published online:
- 15 January 2021
- Print publication:
- 07 January 2021, pp 158-173
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In an article written some years ago, I expressed the concern that those who were in favor of the United Kingdom (UK) and other Commonwealth countries moving to a fair use model of copyright exceptions were not paying sufficient attention to how judges would react to the introduction of such a defense. The universal assumption seemed to be that the problem lay solely with the quality of the legislative tools available to judges. In contrast, I sought to demonstrate that if judges were unable to protect users, this was in large part because they had divested themselves of tools that could have been used to provide such protection. I argued that, viewed over a long sweep of history, judges in the UK had demonstrated a reluctance to protect user interests. My argument was that without a change in judicial attitudes a fair use defense would be applied parsimoniously and hence users would see little, if any, benefit. This argument gained some traction, and the observation that we need to think about exceptions reform not merely in terms of drafting choices, but also in terms of judicial culture, now appears to be broadly accepted.
37 - Trademark Transactions in Common Law Countries
- from XV - Trademark Transactions
- Edited by Irene Calboli, Jane C. Ginsburg
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law
- Published online:
- 18 September 2020
- Print publication:
- 24 September 2020, pp 607-619
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Historically, common law countries took a restrictive approach to transactions involving trademarks. This restrictive approach was said to flow from the reasons for granting protection for trademarks in the first place. If a trademark communicates information to consumers as to the origin and quality of a particular trader’s goods or services, it was thought that any dealing with a trademark, such as an assignment or the grant of a licence to a third party, would disrupt the source and quality guarantee functions of the mark and potentially cause confusion among consumers. In other words, the very reasons that a trademark receives legal protection were thought to justify constraining an owner’s ability to deal with the mark (in contrast with other personal property, such as an unencumbered chattel or a patent). Initially, these sorts of concerns were highly influential, and the law either proscribed or imposed strict limitations on the exploitation of trademarks. However, over the course of the last century there was a gradual liberalisation of these rules. Consequently, in most common law countries, we have now reached a position where the law recognises registered trademarks to be personal property, which can be exploited with fewer restrictions than in the past. This liberalisation has to a large extent reflected changes in business practices, as brands have come to be recognised as valuable commodities in their own right and as trademark licensing, merchandising and franchising have become large and lucrative industries. Notwithstanding this, the tension between the idea of the mark as “property” and the mark as a badge of origin remains. This tension is reflected in the fact that the law retains restrictions on trademark transactions in cases where marks have been or might be used in such a way as to deceive consumers. Working out when a badge of origin can be transferred to an unrelated third party whilst not falling into the category of a “deceptive transaction” remains difficult.
3 - Rethinking the Relationship between Registered and Unregistered Trade Marks
- from Part I - Across Regimes
- Edited by Graeme W. Austin, Victoria University of Wellington, Andrew F. Christie, Andrew T. Kenyon, Megan Richardson
-
- Book:
- Across Intellectual Property
- Published online:
- 27 March 2020
- Print publication:
- 12 March 2020, pp 38-50
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
It is generally assumed that a single theoretical account is sufficient to explain why we protect both registered and unregistered trade marks. Specifically, the need to protect against consumer confusion is said to explain the protection that is afforded to trade marks through both the registration system and through passing off/unfair competition law. Drawing on recent scholarship that sets out to re-examine the role of trade mark registration, this chapter argues that we need to think more seriously about embracing a bifurcated model of trade mark protection, with the two modes of protection underpinned by different justifications and perform different functions. This would allow us to have a clearer idea of how the two systems should interact and when we should prioritise the operation of one over the other.
Myths of the medical methods exclusion: medicine and patents in nineteenth century Britain
- Robert Burrell, Catherine Kelly
-
- Journal:
- Legal Studies / Volume 38 / Issue 4 / December 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 28 September 2018, pp. 607-626
- Print publication:
- December 2018
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
This paper explores the interaction of British medical practitioners with the nascent intellectual property system in the nineteenth century. It challenges the generally accepted view that throughout the nineteenth century there was a settled or professionally agreed hostility to patenting. It demonstrates that medical practitioners made more substantial use of the patent system and related forms of protection than has previously been recognised. Nevertheless, the rate of patenting remained lower than in other fields of technical endeavour, but this can largely be explained by the public nature of medical practice during this period. This paper therefore seeks to retell the history of the exclusion of medical methods from patent protection, an exclusion whose history has produced a substantial body of scholarship. However, its aims go beyond this in that it also seeks to illuminate how medical practitioners engaged with the broader political and policy landscape in order to secure financial remuneration for their inventions. Through an exploration of how prominent doctors interacted with Parliament around claims for a financial reward, it demonstrates that doctors sought to use reputational advantage to leverage financial success and the important role that Parliament could play in that process.
PARLIAMENTARY REWARDS AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE PATENT SYSTEM
- Robert Burrell, Catherine Kelly
-
- Journal:
- The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 74 / Issue 3 / November 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 August 2015, pp. 423-449
- Print publication:
- November 2015
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
This article examines the impact on the patent system of rewards for innovation across the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. During this period, Parliament would regularly grant rewards to inventors, with many of these rewards being set out in legislation. This legislation provided Parliament with the opportunity to promote a model of state support for inventors: a model that made public disclosure of the invention a precondition for assistance. This had important implications for patent law, in particular, in helping to develop the role of the patent specification and the doctrine of sufficiency of disclosure. In this way, the reward system helped establish the framework under which the state would provide support for inventors. Simultaneously, however, the reward system created a space in which inventors would have to do more than meet the minimum requirement of public disclosure. Rewards allowed the state to distinguish between different classes of inventor and to make special provision for particularly worthy individuals. In this way, the reward system recognised the contribution of the “heroic inventor”, whilst leaving the core of the patent system undisturbed.
Contributors
- Edited by Helena Howe, University of Sussex
- Edited in consultation with Jonathan Griffiths, Queen Mary University of London
-
- Book:
- Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law
- Published online:
- 05 October 2013
- Print publication:
- 26 September 2013, pp viii-ix
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
9 - Property concepts in European copyright law
- from Part II - Re-shaping intellectual property rights:
- Edited by Helena Howe, University of Sussex
- Edited in consultation with Jonathan Griffiths, Queen Mary University of London
-
- Book:
- Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law
- Published online:
- 05 October 2013
- Print publication:
- 26 September 2013, pp 205-231
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Rose Teteki Abbey, K. C. Abraham, David Tuesday Adamo, LeRoy H. Aden, Efrain Agosto, Victor Aguilan, Gillian T. W. Ahlgren, Charanjit Kaur AjitSingh, Dorothy B E A Akoto, Giuseppe Alberigo, Daniel E. Albrecht, Ruth Albrecht, Daniel O. Aleshire, Urs Altermatt, Anand Amaladass, Michael Amaladoss, James N. Amanze, Lesley G. Anderson, Thomas C. Anderson, Victor Anderson, Hope S. Antone, María Pilar Aquino, Paula Arai, Victorio Araya Guillén, S. Wesley Ariarajah, Ellen T. Armour, Brett Gregory Armstrong, Atsuhiro Asano, Naim Stifan Ateek, Mahmoud Ayoub, John Alembillah Azumah, Mercedes L. García Bachmann, Irena Backus, J. Wayne Baker, Mieke Bal, Lewis V. Baldwin, William Barbieri, António Barbosa da Silva, David Basinger, Bolaji Olukemi Bateye, Oswald Bayer, Daniel H. Bays, Rosalie Beck, Nancy Elizabeth Bedford, Guy-Thomas Bedouelle, Chorbishop Seely Beggiani, Wolfgang Behringer, Christopher M. Bellitto, Byard Bennett, Harold V. Bennett, Teresa Berger, Miguel A. Bernad, Henley Bernard, Alan E. Bernstein, Jon L. Berquist, Johannes Beutler, Ana María Bidegain, Matthew P. Binkewicz, Jennifer Bird, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Dmytro Bondarenko, Paulo Bonfatti, Riet en Pim Bons-Storm, Jessica A. Boon, Marcus J. Borg, Mark Bosco, Peter C. Bouteneff, François Bovon, William D. Bowman, Paul S. Boyer, David Brakke, Richard E. Brantley, Marcus Braybrooke, Ian Breward, Ênio José da Costa Brito, Jewel Spears Brooker, Johannes Brosseder, Nicholas Canfield Read Brown, Robert F. Brown, Pamela K. Brubaker, Walter Brueggemann, Bishop Colin O. Buchanan, Stanley M. Burgess, Amy Nelson Burnett, J. Patout Burns, David B. Burrell, David Buttrick, James P. Byrd, Lavinia Byrne, Gerado Caetano, Marcos Caldas, Alkiviadis Calivas, William J. Callahan, Salvatore Calomino, Euan K. Cameron, William S. Campbell, Marcelo Ayres Camurça, Daniel F. Caner, Paul E. Capetz, Carlos F. Cardoza-Orlandi, Patrick W. Carey, Barbara Carvill, Hal Cauthron, Subhadra Mitra Channa, Mark D. Chapman, James H. Charlesworth, Kenneth R. Chase, Chen Zemin, Luciano Chianeque, Philip Chia Phin Yin, Francisca H. Chimhanda, Daniel Chiquete, John T. Chirban, Soobin Choi, Robert Choquette, Mita Choudhury, Gerald Christianson, John Chryssavgis, Sejong Chun, Esther Chung-Kim, Charles M. A. Clark, Elizabeth A. Clark, Sathianathan Clarke, Fred Cloud, John B. Cobb, W. Owen Cole, John A Coleman, John J. Collins, Sylvia Collins-Mayo, Paul K. Conkin, Beth A. Conklin, Sean Connolly, Demetrios J. Constantelos, Michael A. Conway, Paula M. Cooey, Austin Cooper, Michael L. Cooper-White, Pamela Cooper-White, L. William Countryman, Sérgio Coutinho, Pamela Couture, Shannon Craigo-Snell, James L. Crenshaw, David Crowner, Humberto Horacio Cucchetti, Lawrence S. Cunningham, Elizabeth Mason Currier, Emmanuel Cutrone, Mary L. Daniel, David D. Daniels, Robert Darden, Rolf Darge, Isaiah Dau, Jeffry C. Davis, Jane Dawson, Valentin Dedji, John W. de Gruchy, Paul DeHart, Wendy J. Deichmann Edwards, Miguel A. De La Torre, George E. Demacopoulos, Thomas de Mayo, Leah DeVun, Beatriz de Vasconcellos Dias, Dennis C. Dickerson, John M. Dillon, Luis Miguel Donatello, Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, Susanna Drake, Jonathan A. Draper, N. Dreher Martin, Otto Dreydoppel, Angelyn Dries, A. J. Droge, Francis X. D'Sa, Marilyn Dunn, Nicole Wilkinson Duran, Rifaat Ebied, Mark J. Edwards, William H. Edwards, Leonard H. Ehrlich, Nancy L. Eiesland, Martin Elbel, J. Harold Ellens, Stephen Ellingson, Marvin M. Ellison, Robert Ellsberg, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Eldon Jay Epp, Peter C. Erb, Tassilo Erhardt, Maria Erling, Noel Leo Erskine, Gillian R. Evans, Virginia Fabella, Michael A. Fahey, Edward Farley, Margaret A. Farley, Wendy Farley, Robert Fastiggi, Seena Fazel, Duncan S. Ferguson, Helwar Figueroa, Paul Corby Finney, Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Thomas E. FitzGerald, John R. Fitzmier, Marie Therese Flanagan, Sabina Flanagan, Claude Flipo, Ronald B. Flowers, Carole Fontaine, David Ford, Mary Ford, Stephanie A. Ford, Jim Forest, William Franke, Robert M. Franklin, Ruth Franzén, Edward H. Friedman, Samuel Frouisou, Lorelei F. Fuchs, Jojo M. Fung, Inger Furseth, Richard R. Gaillardetz, Brandon Gallaher, China Galland, Mark Galli, Ismael García, Tharscisse Gatwa, Jean-Marie Gaudeul, Luis María Gavilanes del Castillo, Pavel L. Gavrilyuk, Volney P. Gay, Metropolitan Athanasios Geevargis, Kondothra M. George, Mary Gerhart, Simon Gikandi, Maurice Gilbert, Michael J. Gillgannon, Verónica Giménez Beliveau, Terryl Givens, Beth Glazier-McDonald, Philip Gleason, Menghun Goh, Brian Golding, Bishop Hilario M. Gomez, Michelle A. Gonzalez, Donald K. Gorrell, Roy Gottfried, Tamara Grdzelidze, Joel B. Green, Niels Henrik Gregersen, Cristina Grenholm, Herbert Griffiths, Eric W. Gritsch, Erich S. Gruen, Christoffer H. Grundmann, Paul H. Gundani, Jon P. Gunnemann, Petre Guran, Vidar L. Haanes, Jeremiah M. Hackett, Getatchew Haile, Douglas John Hall, Nicholas Hammond, Daphne Hampson, Jehu J. Hanciles, Barry Hankins, Jennifer Haraguchi, Stanley S. Harakas, Anthony John Harding, Conrad L. Harkins, J. William Harmless, Marjory Harper, Amir Harrak, Joel F. Harrington, Mark W. Harris, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Van A. Harvey, R. Chris Hassel, Jione Havea, Daniel Hawk, Diana L. Hayes, Leslie Hayes, Priscilla Hayner, S. Mark Heim, Simo Heininen, Richard P. Heitzenrater, Eila Helander, David Hempton, Scott H. Hendrix, Jan-Olav Henriksen, Gina Hens-Piazza, Carter Heyward, Nicholas J. Higham, David Hilliard, Norman A. Hjelm, Peter C. Hodgson, Arthur Holder, M. Jan Holton, Dwight N. Hopkins, Ronnie Po-chia Hsia, Po-Ho Huang, James Hudnut-Beumler, Jennifer S. Hughes, Leonard M. Hummel, Mary E. Hunt, Laennec Hurbon, Mark Hutchinson, Susan E. Hylen, Mary Beth Ingham, H. Larry Ingle, Dale T. Irvin, Jon Isaak, Paul John Isaak, Ada María Isasi-Díaz, Hans Raun Iversen, Margaret C. Jacob, Arthur James, Maria Jansdotter-Samuelsson, David Jasper, Werner G. Jeanrond, Renée Jeffery, David Lyle Jeffrey, Theodore W. Jennings, David H. Jensen, Robin Margaret Jensen, David Jobling, Dale A. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Johnson, Maxwell E. Johnson, Sarah Johnson, Mark D. Johnston, F. Stanley Jones, James William Jones, John R. Jones, Alissa Jones Nelson, Inge Jonsson, Jan Joosten, Elizabeth Judd, Mulambya Peggy Kabonde, Robert Kaggwa, Sylvester Kahakwa, Isaac Kalimi, Ogbu U. Kalu, Eunice Kamaara, Wayne C. Kannaday, Musimbi Kanyoro, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Frank Kaufmann, Léon Nguapitshi Kayongo, Richard Kearney, Alice A. Keefe, Ralph Keen, Catherine Keller, Anthony J. Kelly, Karen Kennelly, Kathi Lynn Kern, Fergus Kerr, Edward Kessler, George Kilcourse, Heup Young Kim, Kim Sung-Hae, Kim Yong-Bock, Kim Yung Suk, Richard King, Thomas M. King, Robert M. Kingdon, Ross Kinsler, Hans G. Kippenberg, Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan, Clifton Kirkpatrick, Leonid Kishkovsky, Nadieszda Kizenko, Jeffrey Klaiber, Hans-Josef Klauck, Sidney Knight, Samuel Kobia, Robert Kolb, Karla Ann Koll, Heikki Kotila, Donald Kraybill, Philip D. W. Krey, Yves Krumenacker, Jeffrey Kah-Jin Kuan, Simanga R. Kumalo, Peter Kuzmic, Simon Shui-Man Kwan, Kwok Pui-lan, André LaCocque, Stephen E. Lahey, John Tsz Pang Lai, Emiel Lamberts, Armando Lampe, Craig Lampe, Beverly J. Lanzetta, Eve LaPlante, Lizette Larson-Miller, Ariel Bybee Laughton, Leonard Lawlor, Bentley Layton, Robin A. Leaver, Karen Lebacqz, Archie Chi Chung Lee, Marilyn J. Legge, Hervé LeGrand, D. L. LeMahieu, Raymond Lemieux, Bill J. Leonard, Ellen M. Leonard, Outi Leppä, Jean Lesaulnier, Nantawan Boonprasat Lewis, Henrietta Leyser, Alexei Lidov, Bernard Lightman, Paul Chang-Ha Lim, Carter Lindberg, Mark R. Lindsay, James R. Linville, James C. Livingston, Ann Loades, David Loades, Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole, Lo Lung Kwong, Wati Longchar, Eleazar López, David W. Lotz, Andrew Louth, Robin W. Lovin, William Luis, Frank D. Macchia, Diarmaid N. J. MacCulloch, Kirk R. MacGregor, Marjory A. MacLean, Donald MacLeod, Tomas S. Maddela, Inge Mager, Laurenti Magesa, David G. Maillu, Fortunato Mallimaci, Philip Mamalakis, Kä Mana, Ukachukwu Chris Manus, Herbert Robinson Marbury, Reuel Norman Marigza, Jacqueline Mariña, Antti Marjanen, Luiz C. L. Marques, Madipoane Masenya (ngwan'a Mphahlele), Caleb J. D. Maskell, Steve Mason, Thomas Massaro, Fernando Matamoros Ponce, András Máté-Tóth, Odair Pedroso Mateus, Dinis Matsolo, Fumitaka Matsuoka, John D'Arcy May, Yelena Mazour-Matusevich, Theodore Mbazumutima, John S. McClure, Christian McConnell, Lee Martin McDonald, Gary B. McGee, Thomas McGowan, Alister E. McGrath, Richard J. McGregor, John A. McGuckin, Maud Burnett McInerney, Elsie Anne McKee, Mary B. McKinley, James F. McMillan, Ernan McMullin, Kathleen E. McVey, M. Douglas Meeks, Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, Ilie Melniciuc-Puica, Everett Mendoza, Raymond A. Mentzer, William W. Menzies, Ina Merdjanova, Franziska Metzger, Constant J. Mews, Marvin Meyer, Carol Meyers, Vasile Mihoc, Gunner Bjerg Mikkelsen, Maria Inêz de Castro Millen, Clyde Lee Miller, Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, Alexander Mirkovic, Paul Misner, Nozomu Miyahira, R. W. L. Moberly, Gerald Moede, Aloo Osotsi Mojola, Sunanda Mongia, Rebeca Montemayor, James Moore, Roger E. Moore, Craig E. Morrison O.Carm, Jeffry H. Morrison, Keith Morrison, Wilson J. Moses, Tefetso Henry Mothibe, Mokgethi Motlhabi, Fulata Moyo, Henry Mugabe, Jesse Ndwiga Kanyua Mugambi, Peggy Mulambya-Kabonde, Robert Bruce Mullin, Pamela Mullins Reaves, Saskia Murk Jansen, Heleen L. Murre-Van den Berg, Augustine Musopole, Isaac M. T. Mwase, Philomena Mwaura, Cecilia Nahnfeldt, Anne Nasimiyu Wasike, Carmiña Navia Velasco, Thulani Ndlazi, Alexander Negrov, James B. Nelson, David G. Newcombe, Carol Newsom, Helen J. Nicholson, George W. E. Nickelsburg, Tatyana Nikolskaya, Damayanthi M. A. Niles, Bertil Nilsson, Nyambura Njoroge, Fidelis Nkomazana, Mary Beth Norton, Christian Nottmeier, Sonene Nyawo, Anthère Nzabatsinda, Edward T. Oakes, Gerald O'Collins, Daniel O'Connell, David W. Odell-Scott, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Kathleen O'Grady, Oyeronke Olajubu, Thomas O'Loughlin, Dennis T. Olson, J. Steven O'Malley, Cephas N. Omenyo, Muriel Orevillo-Montenegro, César Augusto Ornellas Ramos, Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator, Kenan B. Osborne, Carolyn Osiek, Javier Otaola Montagne, Douglas F. Ottati, Anna May Say Pa, Irina Paert, Jerry G. Pankhurst, Aristotle Papanikolaou, Samuele F. Pardini, Stefano Parenti, Peter Paris, Sung Bae Park, Cristián G. Parker, Raquel Pastor, Joseph Pathrapankal, Daniel Patte, W. Brown Patterson, Clive Pearson, Keith F. Pecklers, Nancy Cardoso Pereira, David Horace Perkins, Pheme Perkins, Edward N. Peters, Rebecca Todd Peters, Bishop Yeznik Petrossian, Raymond Pfister, Peter C. Phan, Isabel Apawo Phiri, William S. F. Pickering, Derrick G. Pitard, William Elvis Plata, Zlatko Plese, John Plummer, James Newton Poling, Ronald Popivchak, Andrew Porter, Ute Possekel, James M. Powell, Enos Das Pradhan, Devadasan Premnath, Jaime Adrían Prieto Valladares, Anne Primavesi, Randall Prior, María Alicia Puente Lutteroth, Eduardo Guzmão Quadros, Albert Rabil, Laurent William Ramambason, Apolonio M. Ranche, Vololona Randriamanantena Andriamitandrina, Lawrence R. Rast, Paul L. Redditt, Adele Reinhartz, Rolf Rendtorff, Pål Repstad, James N. Rhodes, John K. Riches, Joerg Rieger, Sharon H. Ringe, Sandra Rios, Tyler Roberts, David M. Robinson, James M. Robinson, Joanne Maguire Robinson, Richard A. H. Robinson, Roy R. Robson, Jack B. Rogers, Maria Roginska, Sidney Rooy, Rev. Garnett Roper, Maria José Fontelas Rosado-Nunes, Andrew C. Ross, Stefan Rossbach, François Rossier, John D. Roth, John K. Roth, Phillip Rothwell, Richard E. Rubenstein, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Markku Ruotsila, John E. Rybolt, Risto Saarinen, John Saillant, Juan Sanchez, Wagner Lopes Sanchez, Hugo N. Santos, Gerhard Sauter, Gloria L. Schaab, Sandra M. Schneiders, Quentin J. Schultze, Fernando F. Segovia, Turid Karlsen Seim, Carsten Selch Jensen, Alan P. F. Sell, Frank C. Senn, Kent Davis Sensenig, Damían Setton, Bal Krishna Sharma, Carolyn J. Sharp, Thomas Sheehan, N. Gerald Shenk, Christian Sheppard, Charles Sherlock, Tabona Shoko, Walter B. Shurden, Marguerite Shuster, B. Mark Sietsema, Batara Sihombing, Neil Silberman, Clodomiro Siller, Samuel Silva-Gotay, Heikki Silvet, John K. Simmons, Hagith Sivan, James C. Skedros, Abraham Smith, Ashley A. Smith, Ted A. Smith, Daud Soesilo, Pia Søltoft, Choan-Seng (C. S.) Song, Kathryn Spink, Bryan Spinks, Eric O. Springsted, Nicolas Standaert, Brian Stanley, Glen H. Stassen, Karel Steenbrink, Stephen J. Stein, Andrea Sterk, Gregory E. Sterling, Columba Stewart, Jacques Stewart, Robert B. Stewart, Cynthia Stokes Brown, Ken Stone, Anne Stott, Elizabeth Stuart, Monya Stubbs, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, David Kwang-sun Suh, Scott W. Sunquist, Keith Suter, Douglas Sweeney, Charles H. Talbert, Shawqi N. Talia, Elsa Tamez, Joseph B. Tamney, Jonathan Y. Tan, Yak-Hwee Tan, Kathryn Tanner, Feiya Tao, Elizabeth S. Tapia, Aquiline Tarimo, Claire Taylor, Mark Lewis Taylor, Bishop Abba Samuel Wolde Tekestebirhan, Eugene TeSelle, M. Thomas Thangaraj, David R. Thomas, Andrew Thornley, Scott Thumma, Marcelo Timotheo da Costa, George E. “Tink” Tinker, Ola Tjørhom, Karen Jo Torjesen, Iain R. Torrance, Fernando Torres-Londoño, Archbishop Demetrios [Trakatellis], Marit Trelstad, Christine Trevett, Phyllis Trible, Johannes Tromp, Paul Turner, Robert G. Tuttle, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Peter Tyler, Anders Tyrberg, Justin Ukpong, Javier Ulloa, Camillus Umoh, Kristi Upson-Saia, Martina Urban, Monica Uribe, Elochukwu Eugene Uzukwu, Richard Vaggione, Gabriel Vahanian, Paul Valliere, T. J. Van Bavel, Steven Vanderputten, Peter Van der Veer, Huub Van de Sandt, Louis Van Tongeren, Luke A. Veronis, Noel Villalba, Ramón Vinke, Tim Vivian, David Voas, Elena Volkova, Katharina von Kellenbach, Elina Vuola, Timothy Wadkins, Elaine M. Wainwright, Randi Jones Walker, Dewey D. Wallace, Jerry Walls, Michael J. Walsh, Philip Walters, Janet Walton, Jonathan L. Walton, Wang Xiaochao, Patricia A. Ward, David Harrington Watt, Herold D. Weiss, Laurence L. Welborn, Sharon D. Welch, Timothy Wengert, Traci C. West, Merold Westphal, David Wetherell, Barbara Wheeler, Carolinne White, Jean-Paul Wiest, Frans Wijsen, Terry L. Wilder, Felix Wilfred, Rebecca Wilkin, Daniel H. Williams, D. Newell Williams, Michael A. Williams, Vincent L. Wimbush, Gabriele Winkler, Anders Winroth, Lauri Emílio Wirth, James A. Wiseman, Ebba Witt-Brattström, Teofil Wojciechowski, John Wolffe, Kenman L. Wong, Wong Wai Ching, Linda Woodhead, Wendy M. Wright, Rose Wu, Keith E. Yandell, Gale A. Yee, Viktor Yelensky, Yeo Khiok-Khng, Gustav K. K. Yeung, Angela Yiu, Amos Yong, Yong Ting Jin, You Bin, Youhanna Nessim Youssef, Eliana Yunes, Robert Michael Zaller, Valarie H. Ziegler, Barbara Brown Zikmund, Joyce Ann Zimmerman, Aurora Zlotnik, Zhuo Xinping
- Edited by Daniel Patte, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 20 September 2010, pp xi-xliv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 296ZE and Schedule 5A
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 352-354
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Part I - Where we are
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 13-14
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
United States Copyright Act 1976, 17 USC, s. 107
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 375-375
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include –
(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
3 - The public interest defence
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 80-112
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In the last chapter it was seen that the statutory provisions relating to activities such as criticism, review and news reporting are inadequate to safeguard freedom of expression or freedom of information. It is therefore important to consider whether these provisions might be supplemented by a ‘common law’ public interest defence, that is, a defence sitting outwith the statutory regime that would justify the publication of copyright material in certain circumstances. This question is complicated by the fact that two recent Court of Appeal cases reached different conclusions as to whether a public interest defence to actions for infringement of copyright exists at all in the United Kingdom, and even the case that accepted that such a defence does exist indicated that its scope is more limited than earlier authorities had seemed to suggest.
This chapter begins by considering the scope of this defence as it had apparently been established prior to the recent decisions of the Court of Appeal. Our aim in this section is to demonstrate that whilst these earlier authorities indicated (quite rightly) that the public interest defence is relatively limited in scope, in its early form the public interest defence added a degree of flexibility to the statutory scheme. In particular, in its early form the public interest defence provided an important additional safeguard in cases where the user was seeking to place evidence contained in an unpublished work into the public domain.
10 - A model for reform
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 276-310
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Having rejected the most commonly prescribed solution to the problems created by the United Kingdom's current approach to protecting users, in this final chapter we outline our vision for reform. As we have indicated at a number of points, we believe that, despite its unpromising history, the Information Society Directive provides a good starting point from which to build a fairer system of exceptions. Although there are aspects of the Information Society Directive that are less than ideal, using the Directive as our starting point has the key advantage that the political obstacles to reform are much less formidable – any other model would almost certainly require amendment or repeal of the Directive in order to be implemented. Our vision of reform has been arranged around four principles. These are: (1) reform must lead to a more flexible system; (2) any new approach must create a workable system; (3) a new system should be restyled as a system of users' rights; (4) in the future there needs to be far more public participation. We begin by explaining and justifying the adoption of these principles before turning to consider what a system of rights for users based around the Information Society Directive might look like.
A flexible system
One principle that we believe should drive reform is that the resulting system must be more flexible than the existing one, which is characterised by an exhaustive list of closely defined exceptions.
Index
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 412-426
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
6 - Markets and metaphors
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 167-192
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Perhaps the immobility of the things that surround us is forced upon them by our conviction that they are themselves and not anything else, by the immobility of our conception of them.
Marcel Proust, Swann's WayThe aim thus far has been to demonstrate that the United Kingdom's existing approach to the permitted acts brings copyright into conflict with a number of important rights and interests and causes a range of real difficulties for both individual and institutional users. We hope that this analysis will speak for itself to some extent. In particular, we hope that our exploration of the practical difficulties that users face in various circumstances will give owner representatives pause for thought and will help counteract their natural reflex to oppose measures that would liberalise the exceptions. In the next three chapters we build on this analysis by exploring some of the reasons why the United Kingdom has adopted an overly restrictive approach to the exceptions. We argue that a variety of factors – political, constitutional, institutional and accidental – together with judicial attitudes have to be accounted for. An exploration of these factors reveals that the current approach to the exceptions does not result from the adoption of a coherent or well thought through approach to copyright as a whole. In so far as copyright can be said to have been consciously shaped, our analysis suggests that for the most part it has been crafted to reflect the interests of powerful and well-organised groups that are able to operate effectively at both the national and international level.
List of abbreviations
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp xiii-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
9 - The fair use panacea
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 249-275
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
A principal theme of the first section of this book is that one of the major difficulties with the United Kingdom's present approach towards the exceptions is that it lacks flexibility. It was seen that in large part this is because the United Kingdom has a list of very specific exceptions, encompassing carefully defined activities. With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to point to the Copyright Act 1911 as providing the template for this approach. This is particularly significant because the 1911 Act was an imperial measure. Although most former colonies and dominions have now had their own copyright legislation for a considerable number of years, for the most part this legislation has tended to follow the imperial model developed in 1911. Thus Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa delineate the limits of copyright protection by way of an exhaustive list of specifically defined exceptions. This ‘Commonwealth’ approach is often contrasted with that adopted in the United States. Although US law does contain a number of specific exceptions, it also has a general ‘fair use’ defence, contained in section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976. Although this section provides a list of examples of the types of use that may constitute fair use (including, for example, criticism, comment and research), this list is merely illustrative.
Contents
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
1 - Copyright and freedom of expression
- Robert Burrell, Australian National University, Canberra, Allison Coleman
-
- Book:
- Copyright Exceptions
- Published online:
- 04 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 February 2005, pp 15-41
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
We begin our analysis of the exceptions in the United Kingdom by considering those provisions that relate to activities such as criticism, review and news reporting. In the next chapter we provide a detailed analysis of the current provisions that relate to such activities, focusing, in particular, on the section 30 fair dealing exceptions. We argue that the current provisions suffer from a number of serious shortcomings. Before turning to consider the current provisions, however, it is necessary to consider why exceptions covering activities such as criticism, review and news reporting are justified – the limits of the current provisions are only a matter of concern if broader exceptions are warranted. A number of justifications have been offered for such provisions. For example, it has been argued that an exception for ‘reviews’ (in the narrow sense of book reviews, film reviews and the like) can be justified on the economic ground that reviews increase the supply of information to consumers and hence help them to make more informed purchasing decisions. In contrast, although we do not discount other justifications, we seek to demonstrate that rights of criticism, review and so on are necessary to reconcile the potential conflict between copyright and freedom of expression or freedom of information.
In outline, we argue that although the capacity of copyright to interfere with freedom of expression is being increasingly recognised, there has been a tendency amongst judges and commentators alike to downplay the extent of the intersection between the two interests.