Blog post by Stephen Wyber
Why Framing Matters When Discussing Knowledge Rights
The European Commission’s commitment to propose a European Research Area (ERA) Act represents an arguably radical shift in how research policy is shaped within the EU.
Under previous Commissions, research was primarily an area characterised by funding programmes and efforts to promote exchange and ‘soft law’ mechanisms. Meanwhile, EU legislation in other areas – like copyright and information law – tended to impact how research was done, without much consideration of what this might mean for researchers and wider research policy goals.
The result? Many legal frameworks – in particular in areas such as copyright and information law – are not necessarily well suited to the needs of researchers.
As such, the ERA Act has the potential to represent a sort of Copernican shift – an effort to place research and knowledge rights at the centre of the discussions, rather than treating them only as peripheral issues. This shift is not just symbolic; it allows for a reframing of the debate.
This blog explores why this matters by comparing how these questions look when you take either copyright or research as a framework for decision-making about the regulation of information creation, use and sharing.
The Traditional Approach: Copyright
Traditionally, copyright law itself has been the main focus of discussion in this space, with specific pieces of law-making (and units or agencies within administrations) dedicated to it.
Building on the internal logic of copyright – a set of exclusive rights combined with more or less-far reaching exceptions to these rights – the debate is often characterised by the clash of advocates for stronger or weaker rights and exceptions.
On each side, opposing forces are lined up, traditionally with (less-well funded) user groups on one side and (larger) corporate rightholders on the other, with the emergence of digital platforms as a third major voice adding a new dimension in recent decades.
This can make copyright appear particularly conflictual, even to the point of deterring some from even getting involved given the sometimes highly polarised nature of the debate. Moreover, there is little space for reflecting on whether copyright is even the most appropriate tool for the job.
This does not make the job of those in the middle – administrators and law-makers – easy. Faced with this, it is understandable that there is a very strong focus on the importance of balance.
This shows in legislation and other actions, where something that is seen as positive for one side of the debate needs to be balanced by something positive for the other. For each step that will allow for easier access and use for libraries, schools, readers and others, there also needs to be one to help industries with business models based on copyright.
For example, the EU’s most recent copyright reform very explicitly contains both provisions that should benefit libraries and their users, and then others that serve rather to support rightholders in their engagement with internet platforms.
Balance itself risks becoming the objective. But here’s the problem: balance isn’t a policy goal. Nor is copyright, inherently. These are tools in a toolbox which may or may not be the right ones for achieving other public policy goals.
Framing reform primarily through a copyright lens risks entrenching conflict and obscuring better alternatives.
Zooming Out: Reframing Around Research
This is why it can be valuable to look at copyright from a wider perspective – one that is well established as a public policy goal in itself, as well as an enabler of the achievement of broader agendas: research.
Crucially, if we frame discussions around research, the key question shifts: what best enables researchers and research institutions to succeed? It also implies a very different set of stakeholders than a discussion focused on copyright alone.
This broader lens brings in new stakeholders, including universities, libraries, and funders. Yes, publishing activities remain important – research relies on the services and infrastructures they provide – but the framing changes the terms of engagement. It’s no longer a zero-sum game, characterised by opposition, but a debate focused on the best way to achieve a clear goal.
Rather than asking how we can do research in ways that do not harm specific business models based on copyright, we ask how we can design and apply copyright rules in ways that maximise support for – and minimise harm to – the progress of research.
Getting the Focus Right
With the ERA Act, the EU has the opportunity to reframe policy around knowledge rights and information. Rather than perpetuating a copyright-driven approach focused on “balance,” we can instead pursue public interest outcomes – such as advancing science, innovation, and education.
The rise of Open Science already demonstrates this shift. Researchers have “voted with their feet,” increasingly adopting open-access practices that opt-out from proprietary copyright models. This evolution questions the continued legitimacy of copyright as the central framing tool in policy discussions.
In this context, the European Commission’s decision to place research at the centre of lawmaking in this area is not only welcome – it is long overdue.
5 May 2025
