| Summary: | <p>The online environment has empowered authors to act on intrinsic and non-commercial motivations for creating and disseminating works in unprecedented ways that conflict with copyrights exclusivity. While all-rights-reserved copyright remains vital to traditional content industries, it is no longer suitable for non-traditional online creators who aim for their works to reach the widest possible audience. The resulting misalignment between copyright law and the terms on which authors wish make their works available—unreliably mediated by social sharing norms and tolerated use—not only deters mutually beneficial content use but risks undermining copyright's credibility as authors implicitly encourage infringement. To remedy this, authors must be given effective control over their works' availability. It is not enough to permit authors to opt out of copyright protection, as this cannot assist creators unaware that copyright attaches to their works. A radical new solution is needed.</p>
<p>This paper proposes ‘Copyright 3.0', a bifurcated copyright system providing modest default rights meeting the average creator's needs (moral rights and protection against commercial use), while enabling authors to flexibly ‘level up' or ‘level down' protection through registration and notice formalities. The default rights would ensure works are never left vulnerable to unjust exploitation, while the burden of opt-in formalities would fall only on those with the most to gain, who can fairly be expected to bear it.</p>
<p>This proposal deviates from the pro-formality literature of the last two decades by arguing for formalities' reintroduction from an authors' rights perspective, rather than a public interest perspective. This makes it uniquely defensible, as the proposed limitations to authors automatic entitlements are designed specifically to empower and protect authors. While Copyright 3.0 conflicts with article 5(2) of the Berne Convention, it is the best available mechanism for tailoring copyright to authors' needs, and aligns with authors' and users' common-sense expectations.</p>
|
|---|