The Adoption of the American Model of Fair Use in the UAE Copyright Law

Olwan, Rami

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95690-9_7

Rami Olwan³

515 Accesses

Abstract

The fair use doctrine is one of the most important and enigmatic doctrines in the copyright law of the United States. IP scholars and experts have suggested introducing flexible open-ended copyright exception such as fair use instead of the restrictive exceptions adopted in many countries to accommodate copyright laws to keep pace with digital and technological developments and suit social and cultural needs. This chapter studies the merits and demerits of this proposal from the perspective of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that follows the continental European system of author’s rights. It reviews copyright exceptions in the UAE Federal Copyright Law No. 7 of 2002, as amended (UAE Copyright Law), and compares it with copyright laws in other countries including the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and France. It examines the various options available to the UAE legislator to reform its copyright regime and suggests the adoption of a liberal system of exceptions to suit the needs of the UAE and its citizens in the twenty-first century.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Section 107 of the US Copyright ACT of 1976, as amended provides that:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of copyright work including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
1. (1)
  the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. (2)
  the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. (3)
  the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. (4)
  the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Sec. 107, US Copyright ACT of 1976 <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/>.
2.
Rogers (2007), pp. 11, 50, 60. See also Aufderheide and Jaszi (2011), p. 26; Hugenholtz (2013), pp. 26–28; Hugenhotlz and Senfteben (2011).
3.
Goldstein and Hugenholtz (2013), p. 372.
4.
See Merges et al. (2006), pp. 506–507.
5.
Guibault (2002), p. 28.
6.
See Mckenugh et al. (2004), p. 245; Senftleben (2004), p. 24.
7.
See art. 35-3 (Fair Use of Copyrighted Material) of the South Korean Copyright Act No. 432 of 1957 as amended. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=2743>.
8.
See art. 184.1 (chapter VIII—Limitations and exceptions) of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, See Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines No. 8293 of 1997, as amended <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129343>.
9.
Aufderheide and Jaszi (2011), p. 18.
10.
See 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass 1841) p. 348. See also McCarthy et al. (2004), p. 228.
11.
Nimmer and Nimmer (2009), p. 154. See also Patry (2011), p. 212.
12.
Ibid, 155.
13.
McCarthy et al. (2004), p. 228.
14.
Nimmer and Nimmer (2009), p. 159.
15.
Ibid, p. 160.
16.
See Campell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 US 569 (1994); Time, Inc. vs Bernard GeisAssos 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968); Sony Corp v. Universal City Studio, Inc. 464 US 417 (1984); and Harper & Row Publishers. Inc. v Nation Enters 471 US 539 (1985).
17.
For further information, see Urban (2010). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
18.
See Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 (CDPA), Chapter III—Act Permitted in Relation to Copyright, (C.48) <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/III>.
19.
See UK Copyright ACT of 1911 (CA) <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/46/contents>.
20.
See Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 (CDPA), Chapter III—Act Permitted in Relation to Copyright, (C.48) <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/III>.
21.
UK Intellectual Property Office, UK Exceptions to Copyright. Available via UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IP office) <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
22.
See Pro Seiben Media AG v. Carlton UK Television Ltd [1998] All ER (D) 751, and Ashdown v. Telegraphy Group Ltd [2001] 4 All ER 666.
23.
UK IP office, above n 19.
24.
Ibid.
25.
See for further explanation, Davis (2008), p. 56; Cornish et al. (2008), pp. 500–509; Colston and Galloway (2010), pp. 407–415.
26.
Gowers (2006). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
27.
The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has been amended in 2014 to include new exceptions for research, education, libraries, museums and archives, disabled people and public administration. See UK law <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents>. See also UK Intellectual Property Office. Available via UK IP office <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
28.
See Hargreaves (2011), pp. 46–51. Available via UK Government <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32563/ipreview-finalreport.pdf>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
29.
Sec. 29 of the Canadian Copyright Act of 1994 and the Copyright Modernization Act (CMA) (Bill C-11) <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/>.
30.
See Australian Copyright Act of 1968 (ACA), as amended, Part III—Copyright in Original Literary, Dramatic, Musical and Artistic Works, Division 3 Act Not Constituting Infringements of Copyright in Works. Available via Australasian Legal Information Institute <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/>.
31.
For a historical account of the French law, see also Stewart (1999), pp. 347–373. See also Goldstein and Hugenholtz (2013), pp. 19–20.
32.
Art. L.122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC). See also art. L.211-3 and art. L.214-1 of IPC in relation to the exceptions for neighboring rights. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5563>.
33.
See also art. L.122-6-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC) that was amended by Act No. 94-361 of 10 May 1994, Official Journal of 11 May 1994. <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5563>.
34.
French <Emphasis Type="Italic">Intellectual Property Code<ExternalRef> (IPC), art. L121-1.
35.
Tribunal de grande instance [TGI] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris, 3e ch., 18 Dec. 2009, 09/00540 <http://www.juriscom.net/documents/tgiparis20091218.pdf>. See also Song (2011), pp. 453, 478; Ginsburg (2010), p. 49.
36.
Compare art. 22 of the UAE Copyright Law with art. L.122-5 of the IPC. UAE Federal Law No. 7 of 2002. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=124612>.
37.
See art. 22 of the UAE Federal Law No. 7 of 2002. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=124612>.
38.
These include quotation (art. 9(2)); illustration for teaching (art. 10 (2)); certain uses of works in certain events (art. 10 bis (1)); and incidental uses of works when reporting on current events (art. 10 bis (2)). The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention). See the Berne Convention <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=12214>.
39.
See arts. 9 and 10 of the Berne Convention. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=12214>.
40.
One of the cases was decided by the Dubai Court of Cassation on 17 June 2007 that found that libraries are allowed to make one copy or more of copyrighted works in any suitable format if the number of copies is limited to the needs and without prejudice the rights of the author. Appeal No. 92/2007, civil decision, 17 June 2007.
41.
Ibid.
42.
This is also a feature of European copyright laws; see Hugenholtz (2012). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
43.
Compare with art. 5 of the United States Jordan Free Trade Agreement (USJFTA) <https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/jordan-fta/final-text>.
44.
See also Olwan (2013), pp. 254–255. Available via Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University <http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol35/iss2/2>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
45.
Ibid, 255.
46.
See also Google Submission for ALRC Review (2012). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
See also ALRC (2013). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
47.
See Author’s Guild, Inc v. Google, Inc 05 Civ. 8136 (S.D.N.Y.) (14 November 2013).
48.
See Authors Guild v. Google, Inc <http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cd715301-f116-49e0-b031-bc42738c4f46/2/doc/13-4829_opn.pdf>. See also Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), Author’s Guld v. Google, Part 11 Fair Proceedings. Available via Eff. <https://www.eff.org/cases/authors-guild-v-google-part-ii-fair-use-proceedings>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
49.
Ibid.
50.
Courtney (2014a). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
51.
See Courtney (2014b). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
52.
Library Copyright Alliance, Hearing on the Scope of Fair Use. Available via Library Copyright Alliance <http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/stfairusepsarev.pdf>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
53.
See Australian Law Review Commission (ACLRC), Copyright and the Digital Economy (DP 2009), (July 2013). Available via ALRC <http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/copyright-and-digital-economy-dp-79>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
54.
Ibid.
55.
The Egyptian Law No. 82 of 2002 on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=1301>.
56.
Samuelson (2005), pp. 1–22.
57.
See art. L. 111-1 of the IPC and compare with art. 5 of the UAE Copyright Law.
58.
Goldstein and Hugenholtz (2013), pp. 14, 15.
59.
See Jehoram (2001), p. 808; Jehoram (1991), p. 677; Bornkamm (2002), pp. 45–46, cited in Senftleben (2004), p. 162.
See Bornkamm (2002), pp. 45–46, cited in Senftleben (2004), p. 162.
60.
Hargreaves and Hugenholtz (2013). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
61.
As Professor David Vaver explains that the American fair use defence spell lawyers, lawsuits, uncertainty and confusion. See Vaver (2001), p. 237.
See also Mckenugh et al. (2004), p. 245. See also Hugenhotlz and Senfteben (2011).
62.
Of course this does not mean that the courts can define fair use as it wish, but it has to follow a set of criteria. See H. R. Rep No. 94-1476, p. 65, cited in Madison (2006), p. 197.
63.
Ibid, p. 179.
64.
Goldstein (2005), p. 5.
65.
Professor David Nimmer believes that “the four factors fail to drive the analysis, but rather serve as convenient pegs on which to hang antecedent conclusions.” See Nimmer and Nimmer (2009), at 202.2.
66.
See for example, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 471 US 539 (1985).
67.
See Nimmer and Nimmer (2009), ch 13, 202.2.
68.
Fassen (2010), pp. 71–107.
69.
Beebe (2008), pp. 549–624. Available Via Penn <https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume156/issue3/Beebe156U.Pa.L.Rev.549%282008%29.pdf>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
70.
See Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) (1998). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
71.
Fassen (2010), pp. 71–107.
72.
Ibid.
73.
Ibid.
74.
See sec. 19 of Israel Copyright Law Act of 2007. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=132095>.
75.
See art. of the Taiwanese Copyright Act of 2007, as amended. Available via WIPO <https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=508148&ctNode=6825&mp=2>.
76.
See also the Sri Lankan Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003, Part II—Chapter 1, art.11. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=6705>.
77.
Fitzgerald (1998), p. 58. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
78.
Art. 35-3 (Fair Use of Copyrighted Material) of the South Korean Copyright Law provides that:
(1) Other than the cases stipulated from art. 23 to arts 35–2, Article 101–3 to art. 101–5 it shall be permissible to Use works for purposes such as news reporting, criticism, education, or research which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. (2) The following four factors must be considered in determining whether a particular use is fair:
1. 1.
  the purpose and character of the use, including whether such Use is of commercial nature or is for non-profit purposes;
2. 2.
  the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. 3.
  amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. 4.
  the effect of the use upon the actual and potential market or value of the copyrighted work.
See South Korean Copyright Act No. 432 of 1957, as amended. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=2743>.
79.
Arts. 184.1 (chapter VIII—Limitations and exceptions) of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines provides that:
184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:

…….

185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
1. a.
  The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. b.
  The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. c.
  The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. d.
  The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
See Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines No. 8293 of 1997, as amended. Available via WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129343>. Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
80.
For explanation of Korean cases, Jong (2017). Accessed 1st Oct 2016. See also Cho (2013a). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
81.
See sec. 184 limitations on Copyright and sec. 185 Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
82.
For further explanation, see Cho (2013b). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
See also Jong (2014). Accessed 1st Oct 2016.
83.
Fassen (2010).
84.
See the UAE Vision of 2021 that strives to build a nation where “knowledgeable and innovative Emiratis will confidently build a competitive and resilient economy that will thrive as a cohesive society bonded to its identity, and enjoy the highest standards of living within a nurturing and sustainable environment.” Available via the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs <http://www.vision2021.ae/en>.
85.
See Hugenhotlz and Senfteben (2011).

References

Journal Articles

Beebe B (2008) An empirical study of U.S copyright fair use opinions, 1978–2005. Univ Pa Law Rev 56(3):549–624
Google Scholar
Fassen M (2010) Amending fair dealing: a response to ‘Why Canada Should Not Adopt Fair Use’. Windsor Rev Legal Soc 1(1):71–107
Google Scholar
Ginsburg J (2010) International issues: which country’s law applies when works are made available over the internet? Colum J Law Arts 34:49
Google Scholar
Hugenholtz B (2013) Law and technology, fair use in Europe. Commun Assoc Comput Mach (ACM) 56(2):26–28
Google Scholar
Olwan R (2013) A pragmatic approach to intellectual property and development: a case study of the Jordanian copyright law in the internet age. Loy Los Angel Int Comp Law Rev 35(2):254–255
Google Scholar
Rogers D (2007) Increasing access to knowledge through fair use – analysing the Google litigation to unleash in developing countries. JTIP 10(1):11, 50, 60
Google Scholar
Song S (2011) Reevaluating fair use in China — a comparative copyright analysis of Chinese fair use legislation, the U.S. fair use doctrine, and the European fair dealing model. IDEA 51:453, 478
Google Scholar

Books and Chapters

Aufderheide P, Jaszi P (2011) Reclaiming fair use: how to put balance back in copyright. The University of Chicago, Chicago
Book Google Scholar
Colston C, Galloway J (2010) Modern intellectual property law. Routledge, London
Google Scholar
Cornish W, Llewelyn D, Aplin T (2008) Intellectual property: patent, copyright and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Davis J (2008) Intellectual property law. Oxford, London, p 56
Google Scholar
Goldstein P (2005) Goldstein on copyright, 3rd edn. Aspen Publishers, New York
Google Scholar
Goldstein P, Hugenholtz B (2013) International copyright- principles, law, and practice. Oxford University, London
Google Scholar
Guibault L (2002) Copyright limitations and contracts: an analysis of the contractual overridability of limitations on copyright. Kluwer International, London
Google Scholar
Madison M (2006) Fair use and social practices. In: Yu PK (ed) Intellectual property and information wealth, vol 1. Praeger Perspectives, Connecticut
Google Scholar
McCarthy T, Schechter R, Franklyn D (2004) McCarthy’s desk encyclopedia of intellectual property. The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA)
Google Scholar
Mckenugh J, Stewart A, Griffith P (2004) Intellectual property law in Australia. Lexis-Nexis Butterworths, New South Wales
Google Scholar
Merges R, Menell P, Lemely M (2006) Intellectual property in the new technological age. Aspen Publishers, New York
Google Scholar
Nimmer M, Nimmer D, (2009) Nimmer on copyright, vol 4. Lexis-Nexis
Google Scholar
Patry W (2011) How to fix copyright. Oxford University, London
Google Scholar
Samuelson P (2005) Should economics play a role in copyright law and policy? In: Takeyama L, Gordon W, Towse R (eds) Developments in the economics of copyright. Edward Elgar, London
Google Scholar
Senftleben M (2004) Copyright, limitations and the three-step test. Kluwer Law International, London
Google Scholar
Stewart S (1999) International copyright and neighboring rights. Butterworth, London, pp 347–373
Google Scholar
Vaver D (2001) Intellectual property law. Irwin Law, Toronto
Google Scholar

Online Publications

Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) (1998) Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, Part 1, Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owner. Available via ALRC <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/clrc/4.html>
Australian Law Reform Commission (ACLRC), Copyright and the Digital Economy (DP 2009) (July 2013). Available via ALRC <http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/copyright-and-digital-economy-dp-79>
Australian Law Reform Commission (2013) Copyright and the Digital Economy Report. Available via ALRC. <http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/summary_report_alrc_122.pdf>
Cho J (2013a) As Korea Implements Fair Use, Two Cases offer Precedent for Flexible Copyright Exceptions and Limitations. Available via Infojustice.org <http://infojustice.org/archives/28561>
Cho J (2013b) Newly Implemented Korean Fair Use and the Three Step Test. Available via Infojustice.org <http://infojustice.org/archives/28766>
Courtney K (2014a) Fair Use Week: Day Three with Guest Expert Kenneth D. Crews on copyright. Available via Harvard Library <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/copyrightosc/2014/02/26/fair-use-week-day-three-with-guest-expert-kenneth-d-crews/>
Courtney K (2014b) Fair Use Week: Day One with Guest Expert Krista L. Cox on Copyright. Available via Harvard Library <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/copyrightosc/2014/02/24/fair-use-week-day-one-guest-expert-krista-l-cox/>
Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), Author’s Guld v. Google, Part 11 Fair Proceedings. Available via Eff. <https://www.eff.org/cases/authors-guild-v-google-part-ii-fair-use-proceedings>
Fitzgerald B, Underlying Rationales of Fair Use: Simplifying the Copyright Act, submission 2 for ALRC, in Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, Part 1, Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights of Copyright owner (September 1998) <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/clrc/4.html>
Google Submission for ALRC Review (2012) Copyright and the Digital Economy. Available via ALRC <http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/subs/217._org_google.pdf>
Gowers A (2006) Gower Review of Intellectual Property (December 2006), Recommendation 12. Available via the HM Treasury. <http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/0118404830/0118404830.pdf>
Hargreaves I (2011) ‘Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth’. Available via U.K Government <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32563/ipreview-finalreport.pdf>
Hargreaves I, Hugenholtz B (2013) Copyright Reform for Growth and Jobs, Available via Institute for Information Law <http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1041>
Hugenholtz B (2012) The Dutch Case for Flexibility. Available via Institute for Information Law <http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/908>
Hugenhotlz B, Senfteben MRF (November 2011) Fair Use in Europe. In Search for Flexibilities. Available via Institute for Information Law <http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/912>
Jong S (2014) Copyright law of Korea. Available via Academia <http://www.academia.edu/8209890/Copyright_Law_of_Korea>
Jong S (2017) Fair Use in Korea, Available via Academia <https://www.academia.edu/31590220/Fair_use_in_Korea>
Library Copyright Alliance, Hearing on the Scope of Fair Use. Available via Library Copyright Alliance. <http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/stfairusepsarev.pdf>
U.K Intellectual Property Office, U.K Exceptions to Copyright. Available via U.K intellectual Property Office (U.K IP office) <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright>
Urban J (2010) Updating Fair Use for Innovators and Creators in the Digital Age: Two Targeted Reforms. Available via Public Knowledge <https://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/fair-use-report-02132010.pdf>

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Queenlands University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Rami Olwan

Authors

Rami Olwan
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

School of Law, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
John Gilchrist
School of Law, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Brian Fitzgerald

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Olwan, R. (2018). The Adoption of the American Model of Fair Use in the UAE Copyright Law. In: Gilchrist, J., Fitzgerald, B. (eds) Copyright, Property and the Social Contract. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95690-9_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95690-9_7
Published: 03 November 2018
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95689-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95690-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics