Nameanddescribethetwodominantopposingapproachestocopyright.

Thetwodominantapproachesarethepropertarianapproachandthedemocratic
approach.Thepropertarianapproachisconsiderscopyrightasatangible
propertydespiteitbeinganintellectualproperty,itisconsideredexclusiveand
rivalrous.Itwasfirstconsideredthroughthe1767millervs.Taylorcasewhere
thestatutorycopyrightofthepoemTheseasonshadexpiredandthe1710act
StatueofAnnedidnotreplaceacommonlawpropertyrightandittherefore
remainedtheAuthorsrights.Aspartofthepropertarianapproachisthe
blackstonain,itfollowsthesameprincipleswherethereisexclusivityand
perpetualityonpropertyrights.Theauthorhastherighttodispose,editor
reclaimanyidenticalofhisworkasitisseenasaninvasionofhisproperty.The
NeoclassicalInstitutionalEconomicaltheoryalsofollowsthepropertarian
approachwherebyintellectualpropertyisseenasrealpropertyanditdiminishes
publicdomain.Neoclassicistfollowsapropertarianapproachwherebythe
ownershavethefullrighttopreventunauthorizedusesandsetpricesfor
licenses.Thesecondapproachisthedemocraticapproachanditseescopyright
asapolicyandisinmorefavourofhowthecreativitywillbenefitthesociety.
Followingthemillervs.Taylorcase,theBeckettvs.Donaldsoncaseemerged
wherethelordshadrejectedperpetualcopyrightanditwasdecidedthatpublic
worksweresubjecttothedurationofthestatueofAnneandwouldtherefore
fallintothepublicdomainaftertheexpirationoftheircopyrightterms.This
approachconsiderstheideaoffairusewhichactsasasafetyvalvesuppressing
amonopolyfrombecomingoppressivewhichisdeterminedbythefairuse
doctrinecodifiedinsection107whichconsistsofthe4factortestwherebythe
purposeandcharacteroftheuse,thenatureofthecopyright,theamountand
sustainabilityandtheeffectoftheuseuponthepotentialmarketisconsidered
whendecidingfairuse.Essentiallyprovidingthesocietyawaytoinfluence
theirworkthroughpreviousworksbutnotsubstitutingtheoriginal,to
encouragecreativity.TheRogersvs.Koonscaseshowedhowthepotential
marketofthecopyrightedphotographwasaffectedbecauseofthesculptures.
Creativecommonslicensessupportsademocraticapproachwhereallformsof
creativeexpressionsaresupportedandanalternativeisgiventostatutory
copyright,allowingdistributionofworksandaimingforbalance,compromise,
moderationontheseworks.Thisissupportedbythecentreofpublicdomain.
Thelicensesthatitacumensincludeattribution,sharealike,noncommercial
andnoderivativebywhicheachofthemplayapartinthefairnessofthis
distribution.AnexampleofaveryopenlicensewouldbeEuropeanawhichis
EuropesdigitallibrarywhichisunderCC0PublicDomaindedicationwhereall
copyrightandrelatedrighttoaworktotheextentpossibleunderthelawis
waiveredcreatingahugeopportunitiesfordevelopersanddesignerswhichis
definitelyopposedtoapropertarianapproach.

Howcanapropertarianapproachtocopyrightconflictwithfairuse?
Apropertarianapproachtreatsintellectualpropertyasarealpropertyandis
thereforeunderexclusivelicensingwheretheauthorhastherighttocontrolthe
distribution,editingandenhancementoftheoriginalwork.Incontrasttothat
fairuseexiststoasaformofregulatorwhichactstopreventtheoppressive
monopolygrant.Itisessentialtomanagehowworksandproductscanbeused
inbothcreativeandconsumeractivitiesforthebenefitofsociety.Theconflict
betweenapropertarianapproachestocopyrightwithfairusewouldbethe
notionoftheuseftheworkvs.useofthecopyright.Inaccordancetothisthe
propertarianapproachwouldnotallowtheworktobeusedinanymanner
withoutgainingalicenseoftheworkandevensotheexclusivityofthelicence
holdsgreatemphasis.Fairuseallowsthisasitisdonefortransformative
purposessuchasparody,criticizeorremixacopyrightedworkandcanbedone
withoutthepermissionoftheownerworkingasadefenceagainstaclaimof
copyrightinfringement.Asknownthe4factortestconsidersthe4distinct
factorsthatcanbeconsideredwhendecidingwhereitwasacaseoffairuseor
copyrightinfringement.Apropertarianapproachwouldnotallowthisasthe
originallicensewouldbetoodifficulttobeattainedbyeveryoneforany
creativepurposes.AsCollinstatesthatweb2.0andprosumergivesanew
meaningtowebculturewhichalsocausesusetoreconsiderwhatwouldbe
determinedfair.Astheemergentintothedigitalageitisahugeconflict
betweenthepropertarianapproachintermsoffairuseasthecreativefreedoms
thatarepresentedbydigitaltechnologiesarethencontrastedbythis
propertarianapproachwhichmainlyfocusesonregulationandmonopolistic
tendencies.Web2.0actsasaformofdigitaltechnologythathasenabledmore
consumerparticipationcreatingprosumerwhoareconsumerswhohavethe
abilitytobecomeproducersandengagewithmediaaroundtheworldto
transformtheworkssuchasdoingremixes.Opensourceisalsoanidea
wherebythesourcecodetosoftwareisopenformodificationbyotherpeople
andisessentiallyseenascreativityandinnovationenhancementbyaccessthis
isamajorconflictwiththepropertarianapproachasthisopenformofediting
withouttheobtainmentofalicensewouldbeconsideredunacceptable.Finally
theideaofcreativecommonswhereallformsofcreativeexpressionsare
supportedtobedistributedunderCClicenses.Thiswasinitiatedasheoriginal
copyrightlawunderthepropertarianapproachwasseenastoocontrollingagain

creatingaconflictbetweenthetwo.Thecreativecommonslicensesvaryasit
allowstheauthorstoimplementconditionstothelicensingyetprovidesenough
freedomfortheaudiencetotransformthework,theseconsistofattribution
whichdemandsforaccreditationoftheauthor,sharealikepermitsremixingof
thework,noncommercialwhichallowstheworktobeusedfornon
commercialpurposesandnoderivativeworkswhichstatesthattheworkcannot
beremixed.Althoughtheselicensesexistasaformofcontrolitisstillvery
differenttothepropertarianapproachwhichmainlyfocusedonexclusivityand
controlforonlythebenefitsoftheauthor.Arecentcasedisplayingaconflictof
thepropertarianapproachwithfairusewouldbetheKookaburravs.Down
Undercasewherethedistinctionbetweenuseoftheworkanduseofcopyright
wassuggestedtobereinstitutedastheproducersofdownunderhadtopay
royaltiestocompensatefortheinfringementcausedbyusingtheportionofthe
original.Throughthispropertarianapproachtheargumentthatuseshouldnot
bethesameinfringementandifitistheninrelevancetothesetransformation
cases,ashortinfringementshouldbeallowedasitisallowedwhendealingwith
fairdealsinceitaccountsfortransformationofthework(Kaplan).