This article argues that recent scholarly attempts to prescribe creative agency to a user subject rarely consider how the user functions in a broader legal and cultural context. I suggest that the user is a complex subject defined by various cultural and legal discourses, following a critical body of scholarship that calls for a more nuanced approach to the issue of user production. I show how the user-a term often treated neutrally in the user production literature-is a subject that is already defined by extant legal discourses like copyright. This argument is developed in a detailed analysis of Canadian copyright law and the Copyright Modernization Act, a reform to Canadian copyright law, which attempted to address the phenomenon of user production. These examples show the user is embroiled in a broader set of creative politics where being defined as a user or an author can have commercial implications. I suggest greater specificity and qualification around the role and scope of the user is needed in future scholarship examining the phenomenon of user production.
BenklerY (2000) From consumers to users: shifting the deeper structures of regulation toward sustainable commons and user access. Federal Communications Law Journal52(3): 561–579.
2.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Networks Transform Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
BurgessJ (2006) Hearing ordinary voices: cultural studies, vernacular creativity and digital storytelling. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies20(2): 201–214.
8.
BurgessJ (2012) The iPhone moment, the Apple brand and the creative consumer: from ‘hackability and usability’ to cultural generativity. In HjorthLRichardsonIBurgessJ (eds) Studying Mobile Media: Cultural Technologies, Mobile Communication, and the iPhone. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 28–42.
9.
CohenJ (2005) The place of the user in copyright law. Fordham Law Review74(2): 347–374.
10.
D’AgostinoG (2008) Healing fair dealing? A comparative copyright analysis of Canada’s fair dealing to UK fair dealing and US fair use. McGill Law Journal53(2): 309–363.
11.
DarntonR (2000) An early information society: news and the media in eighteenth-century Paris. American Historical Review105(1): 1–35.
12.
FisherWIII (1988) Reconstructing the fair use doctrine. Harvard Law Review101(8): 1659–1795.
13.
FitzgeraldBO’BrienD (2005) Digital sampling and culture jamming in a remix world: what does the law allow?Media and Arts Law Review10(4): 279–298.
14.
FitzgeraldBO’BrienD (2006) Digital copyright law in a YouTube world. Internet Law Bulletin9(6–7): 71–74.
15.
GeistM (2012a) Canadian copyright reform in force: expanded user rights now the law. Michael Geist, 7November. Available at: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6692/125/ (accessed 23 July 2013).
16.
GeistM (2012b) The battle over C-11 concludes: how thousands of Canadians changed the copyright debate. Michael Geist, 18June. Available at: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/ (accessed 23 July 2013).
GeistM (2013) Fairness found: how Canada quietly shifted from fair dealing to fair use. In: GeistM (ed.) The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law. Ottawa, ON, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 157–186.
19.
GibsonJ (2006) Creating Selves: Intellectual Property and the Narration of Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate.
20.
GordonW (1982) Fair use as market failure: a structural and economic analysis of the ‘Betamax’ case and its predecessors. Columbia Law Review82(8): 1600–1657.
21.
GordonW (1992) Reality as artifact: from Feist to fair use. Law & Contemporary Problems55(2): 93–106.
22.
Griffen-FoleyB (2004) From tit-bits to big brother: a century of audience participation in the media. Media, Culture & Society26(4): 533–548.
23.
HamiltonJ (2014) Historical forms of user production. Media, Culture & Society36(4): 491–507.
24.
HilderbrandL (2009) Inherent Vice: Bootleg Histories of Videotape and Copyright. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
25.
JenkinsH (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
KatzA (2013) Fair use 2.0: the rebirth of fair dealing in Canada. In: GeistM (ed.) The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law. Ottawa, ON, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 93–156.
28.
LeadbeaterCMillerP (2004) The Pro-am Revolution: How Enthusiasts Are Changing Our Economy and Society. London: Demos.
29.
LessigL (1999) Code and other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic books.
30.
LessigL (2002) The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. New York: Random House.
31.
LessigL (2004) Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin.
32.
LessigL (2008) Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin.
33.
LitmanJ (2001) Digital Copyright. New York: Prometheus Books.
34.
LiuJ (2003) Copyright law’s theory of the consumer. Boston College Law Review44(2): 397–431.
35.
LobatoRThomasJHunterD (2011) Histories of user-generated content: between formal and informal media economies. International Journal of Communication5: 899–914.
36.
McLeodK (2005) Freedom of Expression®: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity. New York: Doubleday.
37.
McLeodKDiColaP (2011) Creative License: The Law and Culture of Digital Sampling. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
38.
MadisonM (2005) Rewriting fair use and the future of copyright reform. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal23(2): 391–418.
39.
PottsJHartleyJBanksJ. (2008) Consumer co-creation and situated creativity. Industry and Innovation15(5): 459–474.
40.
ReynoldsG, (2013) Of reasonableness, fairness and the public interest: judicial review of copyright board decisions in Canada’s copyright pentalogy. In: GeistM (ed.) The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law. Ottawa, ON, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 1–46.
41.
RoseM (1993) Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
SaratASimonJ (eds) (2003) Cultural Analysis, Cultural Studies, and the Law: Moving Beyond Legal Realism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
43.
ScassaT (2013) Acknowledging copyright’s illegitimate offspring: user-generated content and Canadian copyright law. In: GeistM (ed.) The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law. Ottawa, ON, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 431–454.
44.
ShirkyC (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin.
45.
TofflerA (1970) Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books.
46.
TushnetR (2004) Copy this essay: how fair use doctrine harms free speech and how copying serves it. Yale Law Journal114: 535–590.
47.
Van DijckJ (2009) Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society31(1): 41–58.
48.
WoodmanseeM (1984) The genius and the copyright: economic and legal conditions of the emergence of the ‘author’. Eighteenth-Century Studies17(4): 425–448.
49.
Wunsch-VincentSVickeryG (2007) Participative Web: User-Created Content. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
