The democratization of technology to re-create content and make that content publicly available has spurred a wave of user-generated content (UGC), which has produced remarkable social and economic benefits. However, under current copyright law, UGC creators face the dilemma of being deterred from creating UGC because of the risk of copyright infringement, copyright owners can rarely obtain remuneration from UGC, and UGC platforms profit from UGC without being held liable for copyright infringement. Recent proposals to extend fair use and compulsory licenses to UGC creators and impose direct liability on UGC platforms cannot solve the UGC dilemma due to the inadequate or unreasonable regulation of UGC platforms. This study aims to solve the UGC dilemma by proposing a non-exploitative UGC levy on UGC platforms. We demonstrate the necessity of the non-exploitative UGC levy by conducting a comparative study of existing proposals and illustrate the feasibility of the non-exploitative UGC levy through an institutional analysis of its framework and enforcement mechanisms. Justification of the proposed levy and responses to possible criticism are also provided. The levy scheme also provides inspiration for how copyright law can address burgeoning artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC).
AufderheideP.BoylesJ. L.BiezeK. (2013). Copyright, free speech, and the public’s right to know: Journalists and fair use. Journalism Studies, 14(6), 875–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.739320
BaronJ. (2012). The image as direct quotation: Identity, transformation, and the case for fair use. Frames Cinema Journal, 1(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.7939/R3MS3KC3X
4.
BostoenM. E. (2019). Online platforms and pricing: Adapting abuse of dominance assessments to the economic reality of free products. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.02.004
5.
BridyA. (2019). The price of closing the value gap: How the music industry hacked EU copyright reform. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 22(2), 323–358.
6.
BrotmanS. N. (2020). Intersecting points in parallel lines: Toward better harmonization of copyright law and communications law through statutory and institutional reform. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 26(3), 1–21.
7.
CalabresiG.MelamedA. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85(6), 1089–1128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340059
8.
CohenJ. E.LorenL. P.OkedijiR. L.O’RourkeM. A. (2019). Copyright in a global information economy. Wolters kluwer law and business.
9.
DalyP. (2013). Courts and copyright: Some thoughts on standard of review. In GeistM. (Ed.), The copyright pentalogy: How the supreme court of Canada shook the foundations of Canadian copyright law (pp.47–70). University of Ottawa Press.
10.
DavenportT. H.BeckJ. C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Harvard Business Review Press.
11.
De BeerJ. (2006). Locks and levies. Denver University Law Review, 84(1), 143–180.
12.
Elkin-KorenN. (2020). Contesting algorithms: Restoring the public interest in content filtering by artificial intelligence. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720932296. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720932296
13.
Elkin-KorenN.NahmiasY.PerelM. (2020). Is it time to abolish safe harbor? When rhetoric clouds policy goals. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 31(1), 1–50.
14.
FellerG.VentimigliaA. (2020). VidAngel: Content filtering technologies, religion, and American copyright law. Internet Histories, 5(1), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2020.1831198
15.
FrosioG. (2020). Reforming the C-DSM reform: A user-based copyright theory for commonplace creativity. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 51(6), 709–750. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3482523
16.
GervaisD. (2008). Making copyright whole: A principled approach to copyright exceptions and limitations. University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, 5(1), 1–41.
17.
GervaisD. (2016). Is there a “Middle Way” in international intellectual property?IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47(2), 135–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0458-9
18.
GilardiF.LamC. (2022). New perspective on UGC, PGC, and OGC: Motivating factors of Chinese co-creators’ engagement with international television series. Creative Industries Journal, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2022.2150816
19.
GoldsteinP. (2003). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial jukebox. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
20.
GorwaR.BinnsR.KatzenbachC. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897
21.
GotliebM. R.SargeM. A. (2021). Civic learning and self-determination: A model of user-generated content and civic readiness among actualizing citizens. Communication Theory, 31(1), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa032
22.
GuibaultL. (2016). The limit of balancing interests through copyright levies. In LenkC.HoppeN. (Eds.) Ethics and law of intellectual property (pp. 317–338). Routledge.
InguanzoI.ZhangB.ZúñigaH. (2021). Online cultural backlash? Sexism and political user-generated content. Information, Communication and Society, 24(14), 2133–2152. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1962940
KorneliusW. (2023). Prior filtering obligations after case C-401/19: Balancing the content moderation triangle. Journal of Intellectual Property Information Technology & Electronic Communication Law, 14(1), 123–147.
29.
KretschmerM. (2012). Private copying and fair compensation: An empirical study of copyright levies in Europe. Intellectual Property Office.
30.
KüblerR.SeifertR.KandzioraM. (2021). Content valuation strategies for digital subscription platforms. Journal of Cultural Economics, 45(2), 295–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-020-09391-3
31.
LessigL. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. The Penguin Press.
LuC. (2022). Copyright licensing and the regulation of China's music market: Searching for transactional efficiency and fair compensation. Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts, 17(1), 88–130.
34.
LunneyG. (2001). The death of copyright: Digital technology, private copying and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Virginia Law Review, 87(5), 813–920. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073857
35.
MacchiavelloE. (2022). Digital platforms, capital raising and EU capital markets law: Different shades of decentralisation. European Business Law Review, 33(7), 1057–1082. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4157582
36.
MariqueE.MariqueY. (2020). Sanctions on digital platforms: Balancing proportionality in a modern public square. Computer Law & Security Review, 36,Article 105372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105372
37.
MenellP. S. (2015). Adapting copyright for the mashup generation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164(2), 441–512.
38.
MenellP. S.LemleyM. A.MergesR. P.BalganeshS. (2020). Intellectual property in the new technological age: 2020. In Volume I: Perspectives, trade Secrets and patents. Clause 8 Publishing.
39.
MergesR. P. (2020). Patent markets and innovation in the era of big platform companies. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 35(1), 53–112.
40.
MorenoF. R. (2020). Upload filters’ and human rights: Implementing article 17 of the directive on copyright in the digital single market. International review of law, Computers & Technology, 34(2), 153–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2020.1733760
41.
MurrayM. D. (2023). Generative and AI authored artworks and copyright law. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 45(1), 27–44.
42.
NetanelN. W. (2003). Impose a noncommercial use levy to allow free peer-to-peer file sharing. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 17(1), 1–84. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.468180
43.
QuintaisJ. P.GregorioG.MagalhãesJ. (2023). How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications. Computer Law & Security Review, 48,Article 105792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792
44.
RojszczakM. (2022). Online content filtering in EU law: A coherent framework or jigsaw puzzle?Computer Law & Security Review, 47,Article 105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105739
45.
SagM. (2017). Internet safe harbors and the transformation of copyright law. The Notre Dame Law Review, 93(2), 499–564. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2830184
46.
SalarN. (2023). The Canadian UGC exception: An attempt to revolutionise the fair use defence for user generated content?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 28(1), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v28i2.555
SanchezM. N. (2020). EU directive on copyright in the digital single market: An outlier in intermediary liability and the death of safe harbor protections. University of San Francisco Law Review, 55(2), 251–274.
49.
SchroffS.StreetJ. (2018). The politics of the digital single market: Culture vs. competition vs. copyright. Information, Communications Society, 21(10), 1305–1321. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1309445
50.
SenftlebenM. (2019). User-generated content: Towards a new use privilege in EU copyright law. In: TanyaA. (Ed), Research handbook on intellectual property and digital technologies (pp.136–162). Edward Elgar Publishing.
51.
SenftlebenM. (2020). Institutionalized algorithmic enforcement: The pros and cons of the EU approach to UGC platform liability. FIU Law Review, 14(2), 299–328. https://doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.14.2.11
52.
ShirkyC. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. Penguin.
53.
SparD. L. (2001). Ruling the waves: Cycles of discovery, chaos, and wealth, from the compass to the Internet. Harcourt Trade Publishers.
54.
StrowelA. (2023). ChatGPT and generative AI tools: Theft of intellectual labor?IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54(4), 491–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01321-y
55.
ToumehA. A.YahyaS.AmranA. (2023). Surplus free cash flow, stock market segmentations and earnings management: The moderating role of independent audit committee. Global Business Review, 24(6), 1353–1382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920934069
56.
TowseR. (2020). Dealing with digital: The economic organization of streamed music. Media, Culture and Society, 42(8), 1461–1478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720919
57.
TylecG.MaćkowskaK.KwiecieńS. (2022). Copyright trolling as threat to internet users’ legal and economic security: Comments in light of EU and US legislations. Computer Law & Security Review, 45,Article 105688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105688
WongM. W. S. (2008). Transformative user-generated content in copyright law: Infringing derivative works or fair use. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 11(4), 1075–1139.
61.
YuP. K. (2005). P2P and the future of private copying. University of Colorado Law Review, 76(3), 653–766.
62.
ZhouJ. (2022). The advantages and disadvantages of introducing a new user-generated content exception into copyright legislation. Asian Journal of Social Science Studies, 7(8), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.20849/ajsss.v7i8.1267
