Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Copyright Support Musical Creativity in a Remix Era?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
EU Internet Law in the Digital Single Market

  • 2368 Accesses

Abstract

Advancements of technology in music, the popularisation and ease of access to home recording software and hardware, and the creation of user-generated-content-orientated websites, and their subsequent proliferation, have resulted in a move from users exhibiting a mere passive role toward having a more active role in the creation and dissemination of music. As a result, we have witnessed the rise of prosumers of music and a remix culture.

This phenomenon has been accused of giving rise to a remix era, and it is contested that remixing has created new avenues for musical creativity. However, the term creativity is ambiguous and thus requires further clarification since different perceptions of creativity lead to different results regarding whether musical remixes are in fact creative. Furthermore, EU copyright and related enforcement regimes not specifically attuned toward regulating musical remixes apply concurrently. Could they ultimately be stifling creativity?

This chapter views copyright through the lens of different perceptions of creativity and examines whether musical remixes in today’s digital era are in fact creative and, in doing so, answers the question of whether EU copyright law supports musical creativity in a remix era by drawing upon inferences from UK case law and beyond.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lessig (2008).

  2. 2.

    Ibid.

  3. 3.

    Ibid.

  4. 4.

    Ibid, 27.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    Ibid, 28.

  7. 7.

    The term prosumer is often attributed to Alvin Toffler who argues that over time we have witnessed the progressive distortion of the once distinctive roles of consumers and producers. It is posited that the same phenomenon is taking place in the realm of music. Musical remixes are not the only form of music prosumption. For instance, cover songs would also be categorised as works of music prosumption. However, the focus of this chapter is on musical remixes and not on all works of music prosumption. Toffler (1980).

  8. 8.

    Lessig (2008), p. 58.

  9. 9.

    Sinnreich (2010).

  10. 10.

    Ferguson (2015) Everything is a Remix.

  11. 11.

    Cabay and Lambrecht (2015).

  12. 12.

    Cheliotis (2007).

  13. 13.

    Lessig (2008).

  14. 14.

    ‘These Are the World’s Most Popular Websites’ (World Economic Forum) <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/most-popular-websites-google-youtube-baidu/> accessed 14 February 2020.

  15. 15.

    (2017) The 20 Most Popular Types Of YouTubers: Genres, Examples. In: Mediakix. https://mediakix.com/blog/most-popular-types-of-youtubers/. Accessed 6 March 2020.

  16. 16.

    Hugh McIntyre, ‘Report: YouTube Is the Most Popular Site for On-Demand Music Streaming’ (Forbes) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2017/09/27/the-numbers-prove-it-the-world-is-listening-to-the-music-it-loves-on-youtube/> accessed 14 February 2020.

  17. 17.

    Searching for the term “remix” on YouTube returns 813,000,000 results.

  18. 18.

    Hellweg (2004).

  19. 19.

    McIntyre (2016). Also, a recent example is provided by Despacito by Luis Fonsi & Daddy Yankee which managed to reach number one on global charts after it had been remixed by Justin Bieber. Also see—SAINt JHN—“Roses” (Imanbek Remix).

  20. 20.

    Rostama (2015).

  21. 21.

    Lessig (2008).

  22. 22.

    Patrick (2016).

  23. 23.

    Daly (2005).

  24. 24.

    Lessig (2008).

  25. 25.

    Gramophone Co. of India v Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., (1996) PTC (16), at 47.

  26. 26.

    Sunder (2006).

  27. 27.

    Newton v Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, at 1192 (9th Cir. 2004); VMG Salsoul, LLC v Ciccone, No. 13-57104 (9th Cir. 2016).

  28. 28.

    Case C-476/17 Pelham GmbH, Moses Pelham and Martin Haas v Ralf Hutter and Florian Scheider-Esleben [2019] para 35.

  29. 29.

    Bernd Jütte Justin (2014).

  30. 30.

    McAvan (2006).

  31. 31.

    DJ Earworm Mashup—Shape of Now—YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRJh-o65CUQ. Accessed 30 July 2020.

  32. 32.

    Eble (2013).

  33. 33.

    Sexton (2007), p. 7.

  34. 34.

    Cheliotis (2007).

  35. 35.

    Ku et al. (2009). One criticism of this view, is that it can only be applied to jurisdictions which have a registered copyright system such as the US which has a voluntary registration system.

  36. 36.

    Case C 5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECDR 16.

  37. 37.

    Rosati (2013).

  38. 38.

    Case C-393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury [2011] ECDR 3, para 45; Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Other, Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services [2012] CMLR 29 para 97, Case C-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH [2012] ECDR 6, para 87; Case C-355/12 Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl [2012] ECDR 6, para 21.

  39. 39.

    Infopaq (2009) at 37.

  40. 40.

    Jacques (2017); Mendis (2019).

  41. 41.

    C-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others [2011] ECR I-12533, at 88.

  42. 42.

    Ibid, at 94.

  43. 43.

    DJ Earwork’s mashups are mashups with elements of sampling. As such, the way in which the mashup is structured i.e. the lyrics and sound recording are rearranged, results in a completely new meaning being given to the songs being reused.

  44. 44.

    Sawkins v Hyperion Records (2005) RPC 32.

  45. 45.

    Ibid, at 25.

  46. 46.

    Robinson (2005).

  47. 47.

    Ferguson (2015) Everything is a Remix.

  48. 48.

    Cabay and Lambrecht (2015), p. 360.

  49. 49.

    Macmillan & Co Ltd v K & J Cooper (1923) 93 LJPC 113.

  50. 50.

    Rahmatian (2013).

  51. 51.

    Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2011) EWHC 2892; Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd (2012) FSR 9.

  52. 52.

    University of London Press v University Tutorial Press (1916) 2 Ch. 601, at 608.

  53. 53.

    Macmillan (1923).

  54. 54.

    Ladbroke v William Hill (1964) 1 WLR 273; Express Newspapers plc v News (UK) Ltd (1990) FSR 359.

  55. 55.

    Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc. (1989) AC 217, at 262–263.

  56. 56.

    Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc. (1989) AC 217.

  57. 57.

    Abrams (1992).

  58. 58.

    Kretschmer (2012).

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    As aforementioned, authorised remixing has become the norm for mainstream artists. A relatively recent example is provided by Despacito by Luis Fonsi & Daddy Yankee which managed to reach number one on global charts after it had been remixed by Justin Bieber.

  62. 62.

    Searching for the term “remix” on YouTube returns 813,000,000 results.

  63. 63.

    This is discussed in more depth below where the pseudo-pathway to right clearance is introduced.

  64. 64.

    Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ 2 167/10.

  65. 65.

    Hawkes & Sons (London) Ltd v Paramount Film Services Ltd (1934) Ch. 593, at 604.

  66. 66.

    Ladbroke v William Hill (1964) 1 WLR 273; University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd (1916) 2 Ch. 601, at 610.

  67. 67.

    Ladbroke v William Hill (1964) 1 WLR 273, at 276.

  68. 68.

    Produce Records Ltd v BMG Entertainment UK and Ireland Ltd Unreported, January 19, 1999.

  69. 69.

    McLeod and DiCola (2011).

  70. 70.

    EMI v Larrkin (2011) 276 ALR 35, at 54.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    McLeod and DiCola (2011).

  73. 73.

    Bridgeport Music, Inc. v Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005).

  74. 74.

    VMG Salsoul, LLC v Ciccone, No. 13-57104 (9th Cir. 2016).

  75. 75.

    Hawkes & Sons (London) Ltd v Paramount Film Service Ltd (1934) Ch. 593.

  76. 76.

    Pelham (2019).

  77. 77.

    § 24 Copyright Act of 9 September 1965 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1273), as last amended by Article 1 of the Act of 28 November 2018 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2014), see https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html accessed 10 June 2020.

  78. 78.

    Bernd Jütte Justin (2019), p. 827.

  79. 79.

    Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ 2 167/10.

  80. 80.

    Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ 2 167/10.

  81. 81.

    AG Szpunar, Opinion in Pelham GmbH v Hutter EU:C:2018:1002; [2019] E.C.D.R. 3 at [28]–[33].

  82. 82.

    Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Vandersteen (C-201/13) [2014] Bus. L.R. 1368, at 27; Eva-Maria Painer v Standards Verlags GmbH (C-145/10) [2011] E.C.D.R. 13 at 134.

  83. 83.

    Cabay and Lambrecht (2015). Jacques (2015a).

  84. 84.

    Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ 2 167/10.

  85. 85.

    Bently et al. (2018), p. 246.

  86. 86.

    Eva-Maria Painer v Standards Verlags GmbH (C-145/10) [2011] E.C.D.R. 13.

  87. 87.

    Ferguson (2015) Everything is a Remix.

  88. 88.

    Eva-Maria Painer v Standards Verlags GmbH (C-145/10) [2011] E.C.D.R. 13.

  89. 89.

    Ibid, 136.

  90. 90.

    Ibid, 139–149.

  91. 91.

    A quick search on YouTube for the term “remix” reveals that more often than not, the original artists name and song title which are being remixes are quoted in the title of the video. However, this is something which requires more in-depth research.

  92. 92.

    Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Eva-Maria Painer v Standards Verlags GmbH (C-145/10) [2011] E.C.D.R. 13, at 208–209.

  93. 93.

    Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ 2 167/10.

  94. 94.

    Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Vandersteen (C-201/13) (2014) ECDR 21, at 15.

  95. 95.

    Ibid, at 20.

  96. 96.

    Ibid.

  97. 97.

    Erickson, K. (2013) Evaluating the impact of parody on the exploitation of copyright works: an empirical study of music video content on YouTube. Project Report. Intellectual Property Office UK, Newport, UK.

  98. 98.

    Justin Bieber vs Slipknot -Psychosocial Baby. In: YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPtJt4A7iOA&ab_channel=bullet4sum. Accessed 30 July 2020.

  99. 99.

    Jacques (2015c).

  100. 100.

    Jacques (2015b).

  101. 101.

    Stuart v Barrett (1994) EMLR 448; Hadley v Kemp (1999) EMLR 589.

  102. 102.

    See for instance, Psychosocial Baby mentioned above (n 98).

  103. 103.

    Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd (2001) EWCA Civ 1142, at 72.

  104. 104.

    Triaille (2013).

  105. 105.

    Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v Austria (No.3) (2006) 42 EHRR 28.

  106. 106.

    Jacques (2015a).

  107. 107.

    HM Government (2012).

  108. 108.

    (2016) Remix Culture vs Copyright Laws. In: Atavist. https://beingbela.atavist.com/remix-culture-vs-copyright-laws. Accessed 30 July 2020.

  109. 109.

    Jacques (2015c), p. 136.

  110. 110.

    Hudson (2017).

  111. 111.

    Ibid., p. 368.

  112. 112.

    Adebiyi (2014).

  113. 113.

    Miranda Branco Tomé Quintais (2017), p. 204.

  114. 114.

    Hudson (2017), p. 364.

  115. 115.

    Metzger and Senftleben (2020), p. 13.

  116. 116.

    Ibid.

  117. 117.

    Ferguson K (2015) Everything is a Remix.

  118. 118.

    Jackson B (2012) Why Remix Culture Needs New Copyright Laws. In: BuzzFeed NEWS. https://www.buzzfeed.com/benjaminj4/why-remix-culture-needs-new-copyright-laws?utm_term=.ex4ym407Jm#.wvYRExKN8E. Accessed 14 May 2017.

  119. 119.

    Jacques (2015a). Lessig (2008).

  120. 120.

    Harcourt et al. (2015).

  121. 121.

    Hartrell (2009).

  122. 122.

    Harcourt et al. (2015), p. 26. Also see s10A CPDA 1988.

  123. 123.

    Confetti Records & Others v Warner Music UK Ltd (2003) EWHC 1274; For a US case see: Estate of James Oscar Smith v Cash Money Records, Inc., et al. No. 1:14-cv-02703 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017).

  124. 124.

    YouTube’s own digital fingerprinting mechanism.

  125. 125.

    Heald (2014).

  126. 126.

    Erickson and Kretschmer (2018), p. 7.

  127. 127.

    (C-236/08) [2011] Bus. L.R. 1.

  128. 128.

    (C-324/09) [2012] Bus. L.R. 1369.

  129. 129.

    Urban and Quilter (2006).

  130. 130.

    Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC [2019] OJ 2 130/92.

  131. 131.

    João Quintais (2019).

  132. 132.

    João Quintais (2019), p. 37; Samuelson (2020), p. 218; Trapova (2019), p. 276. The value gap is a term coined in this respect by the music industry, and essentially purports that there is an unfair imbalance between the revenue generated from unauthorised content by UGC orientated platforms and the amount of revenues returned to the rightsholders whose works are being reused without authorisation.

  133. 133.

    Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC [2019] OJ 2 130/92, Article 17(1).

  134. 134.

    Hansson (2020), p. 96.

  135. 135.

    Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC [2019] OJ 2 130/92, Article 17(2), Article 17(4)(a).

  136. 136.

    Ibid, Article 17(4)(b).

  137. 137.

    Ibid, Article 17(4)(c).

  138. 138.

    Cabay and Lambrecht (2015), p. 366.

  139. 139.

    Potter (2013).

  140. 140.

    Ibid. The Berne Convention does not expressly mention whether or not waiving of moral rights is prohibited or alternatively, permitted and this is left as a matter of contract law. As a result, there are variations between signatories to the Berne Convention regarding the matter.

  141. 141.

    Jacques (2015a).

  142. 142.

    Ibid.

  143. 143.

    Harrison v Harrison (2010) ECDR 12, at 84–85; Sainsbury (2007).

  144. 144.

    Ward (1995), Finke (1995), Nickerson (1999), Rahmatian (2011).

  145. 145.

    Litman (1990), p. 966.

  146. 146.

    Rahmatian (2005).

  147. 147.

    Steel (2015).

  148. 148.

    West (2009).

  149. 149.

    Ferguson K (2015) Everything is a Remix, 6:15.

  150. 150.

    Ibid.

References

  • Abrams HB (1992) Originality and creativity in Copyright law. Law Contemp Probl 55:3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adebiyi O (2014) ‘Law imitating life’: will the day ever come? Parody, caricature, and pastiche. Entertain Law Rev 25:243–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Bently L, Sherman B, Gangjee D, Johnson P (2018) Intellectual property law, 5th edn. OUP, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabay J, Lambrecht M (2015) Remix prohibited: how rigid EU copyright laws inhibit creativity. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 10:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheliotis G (2007) Remix culture: an empirical analysis of creative reuse and the licensing of digital media in online communities. Submission to the First Interdisciplinary Research Workshop on Free Culture

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly S (2005) The sole track that launched commercial Hip-Hop in 1979. Vanity Fair

    Google Scholar 

  • Eble K (2013) This is a remix: remixing music copyright to better protect mashup artists. Univ Ill Law Rev 2013:661–694

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson K, Kretschmer M (2018) ‘This Video is Unavailable’: analyzing copyright takedown of user-generated content on YouTube. J Intell Prop Info Technol Electr Commer Law 9:75

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson K (2015) Everything is a remix. Vimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • Finke RA (1995) Case studies of creative thinking: reproduction versus restructuring in the real world. In: Creative cognitive approach. MIT Press, pp 53–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson S (2020) The digital services act: upgrading liability, responsibility and safety online. Entertain Law Rev 31:94–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt A, Edwards A, Malt A et al (2015) Dissecting the digital dollar part one. Music Managers Forum

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartrell D (2009) IP Osgoode Panel: Copyright in the Remix Era Part 2 – An Emerging Consensus

    Google Scholar 

  • Heald PJ (2014) How notice-and-takedown regimes create markets for music on YouTube: an empirical study. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2416519

  • Hellweg E (2004) Mix and mash: the mashup is born from a blend of two songs. Edutopia

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Government (2012) Modernising copyright: a modern, robust and flexible framework. The Intellectual Property Office

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson E (2017) The pastiche exception in copyright law: a case of mashed-up drafting? Intellect Prop Q 4:346–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacques S (2015a) Mash-Ups and mixes: what impact have the recent copyright reforms had on the legality of sampling? SSRN Electr J https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2893261

  • Jacques S (2015b) Are the new ‘fair dealing’ provisions an improvement on the previous UK law, and why? Part of a wider reform. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv137

  • Jacques S (2015c) Are national courts required to have an (exceptional) European sense of humour? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 37:134–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacques S (2017) Is it original? New French decision on Mankowitz’s famous portrait of Jimi Hendrix. Entertain Law Rev 28:251–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Jütte Justin B (2014) The EU’s trouble with mashups - from disabling to enabling a digital art form. J Intellect Prop Law Inform Technol E-Commer 172

    Google Scholar 

  • Jütte Justin B (2019) CJEU permits sampling of phonograms under a de minimis rule and the quotation exception. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 14:827–829. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpz120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer M (2012) Does copyright law matter? An empirical analysis of creators’ earnings. SSRN Electr J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2063735

  • Ku RSR, Sun J, Fan Y (2009) Does copyright law promote creativity? An empirical analysis of copyright’s bounty. Vanderbilt Law Rev 63:1669–1746

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (2008) Remix: making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. A & C Black

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman J (1990) The public domain. Emory Law J 39:965–1023

    Google Scholar 

  • McAvan E (2006) Boulevard of broken songs: mash-ups as textual re-appropriation of popular music culture. J Media Cult 9

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre H (2016) More and more, it’s the remix that’s actually the hit. Forbes

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod K, DiCola P (2011) Creative license: the law and culture of digital sampling. Duke University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendis S (2019) Can a digitised version obtain copyright protection Within the EU? In: Mendis S (ed) A copyright gambit: on the need for exclusive rights in digitised versions of public domain textual materials in Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp 121–193

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger A, Senftleben M (2020) Comment of the European Copyright society on selected aspects of implementing Article 17 of the Directive on copyright in the digital single market into national law. European Copyright Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda Branco Tomé Quintais JP (2017) Copyright in the age of online access: alternative compensation systems in EU copyright law

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson RS (1999) Enhancing creativity. In: Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, pp 392–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick J (2016) A guide to Pierre Schaeffer, the godfather of sampling. FACT:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter W (2013) Music mash-ups: the current australian copyright implications, moral rights and fair dealing in the remix era. Deakin Law Rev 17:349. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2012vol17no2art84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintais J (2019) The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3424770

  • Rahmatian A (2005) Music and creativity as perceived by copyright law. Intellect Prop Q 3:267–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmatian A (2011) Copyright and creativity: the making of property rights in creative works. Edward Elgar Pub

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmatian A (2013) Originality in UK copyright law: the old ‘skill and labour’ Doctrine under pressure. IIC - Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 44:4–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-012-0003-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson A (2005) Hyperion Records Ltd v Dr Lionel Sawkins: it’s like that and that’s the way it is. Entertain Law Rev 16:191–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2013) Originality in EU copyright: full harmonisation through case law. Edward Elgar Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostama G (2015) Remix culture and Amateur creativity: a copyright Dilemma. WIPO Magazine

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury M (2007) Parody, Satire, Honour and reputation: the interplay between economic and moral rights. Aust Intellect Prop J 18:149

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (2020) Regulating technology through copyright law: a comparative perspective. EIPR: Eur Intellect Prop Rev 42:214–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Sexton J (2007) Introduction. In: Sexton J (ed) Music, sound and multimedia: from the live to the virtual. Edinburgh University Press, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnreich A (2010) Mashed up: music, technology, and the rise of configurable culture. University of Massachusetts Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Steel E (2015) Original sin: reconciling originality in copyright with music as an evolutionary art form. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 37:66

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunder M (2006) IP3. Stanford Law Rev 59:257

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler A (1980) The third wave. Morrow

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapova A (2019) Reviving collective management – will CMOs become the true mediators they ought to be in the digital single market? Europ Intellect Prop Rev 42:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Triaille J-P (2013) Study on the Application of Directive 2001/29/EC on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (The INFOSOC Directive). https://doi.org/10.2780/90141

  • Urban J, Quilter L (2006) Efficient process or ‘chilling effects’? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward TB (1995) What’s old about new ideas? In: Creative cognitive approach. MIT Press, pp 157–178

    Google Scholar 

  • West JP (2009) What would Keith Richards do? daily affirmations from a rock ‘n’ roll survivor. Bloomsbury

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Old College, Edinburgh, UK

    Giorgos D. Vrakas

Authors
  1. Giorgos D. Vrakas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgos D. Vrakas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou

  2. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Philippe Jougleux

  3. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Christiana Markou

  4. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Thalia Prastitou-Merdi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Vrakas, G.D. (2021). Does Copyright Support Musical Creativity in a Remix Era?. In: Synodinou, TE., Jougleux, P., Markou, C., Prastitou-Merdi, T. (eds) EU Internet Law in the Digital Single Market. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69582-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69583-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation