Two Decades of Copyright and the Law: A Bibliometric Analysis

This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research on copyright and the law, aiming to map scholarly developments, thematic directions, and collaborative patterns over the past two decades. The problem arises from the increasing complexity of copyright regulation in a rapidly evolving technological environment, where digital dissemination, artificial intelligence and cross border content flows continue to challenge the adequacy of traditional legal frameworks. To address this issue, the study employs a systematic methodology beginning with Scopus advanced searching, which generated an initial dataset subsequently refined to 1,549 publications after applying inclusion criteria. The dataset was cleaned and harmonised using OpenRefine to ensure consistent author, keyword and institutional information. Statistical trends and graphical insights were derived from the Scopus Analyzer, while VOSviewer was used to visualise co authorship networks, keyword co-occurrence structures and country-based research clusters. The numerical results indicate a steady growth of publications with marked increases in recent years corresponding to intensified debates on digital rights, AI generated content and international harmonisation of copyright standards. The United States, United Kingdom and Germany emerge as dominant contributors, while nine keyword clusters reveal core themes such as copyright law, intellectual property, fair use, authorship, artificial intelligence and digital rights management. Collaboration mapping identifies eight clusters of international partnerships, reflecting strong networks in Europe and rising participation from rapidly digitalising countries. The study concludes that research on copyright and the law is expanding in complexity and scope, driven by technological innovations and evolving legal norms. The findings offer a structured overview of the intellectual landscape, providing a solid foundation for future inquiry and guiding policymakers and scholars in anticipating emerging regulatory challenges in the copyright domain.

copyright, law, intellectual property

1. J. L. Alves, I. B. Borges, and J. De Nadae, “Sustainability in complex projects of civil construction: Bibliometric and bibliographic review,” Gest. e Prod., vol. 28, no. 4, 2021, doi: 10.1590/1806-9649-2020v28e5389. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. D. S. Assyakur and E. M. Rosa, “Spiritual Leadership in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis,” J. Aisyah J. Ilmu Kesehat., vol. 7, no. 2, 2022, doi: 10.30604/jika.v7i2.914. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Verbeek, K. Debackere, M. Luwel, and E. Zimmermann, “Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology - I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators,” Int. J. Manag. Rev., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 2002, doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00083. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Y. C. J. Wu and T. Wu, “A decade of entrepreneurship education in the Asia Pacific for future directions in theory and practice,” 2017. doi: 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Fahimnia, J. Sarkis, and H. Davarzani, “Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis,” 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Al-Khoury et al., “Intellectual Capital History and Trends: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Scopus Database,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 18, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su141811615. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. G. di Stefano, M. Peteraf, and G. Veronay, “Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain,” Ind. Corp. Chang., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1187–1204, 2010, doi: 10.1093/icc/dtq027. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. G. P. Khiste and R. R. Paithankar, “Analysis of Bibliometric term in Scopus,” Int. Res. J., vol. 01, no. 32, pp. 78–83, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer,” Scientometrics, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 1053–1070, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Gu, T. Li, X. Wang, X. Yang, and Z. Yu, “Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of electronic health and telemedicine research,” Int. J. Med. Inform., vol. 130, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.08.007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. F. P. Appio, F. Cesaroni, and A. Di Minin, “Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis,” Scientometrics, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 623–661, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1329-0. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. N. J. Van Eck and L. Waltman, “Bibliometric mapping of the computational intelligence field,” in International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowldege-Based Systems, 2007, pp. 625–645. doi: 10.1142/S0218488507004911. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Seville, The internationalisation of copyright law: Books, buccaneers and the black flag in the nineteenth century. 2006. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511495274. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. J. E. Cohen, “The place of the user in copyright law,” in Fordham Law Review, 2005, pp. 347–374. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-29544450751&partnerID=40&md5=1d4ae58761f061fad815dcd02db5f9b9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rosati, Originality in EU copyright: Full harmonization through case law. 2013. doi: 10.4337/9781782548942. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Alexander, Copyright Law and the Public Interest in the Nineteenth Century. 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85198278415&partnerID=40&md5=228687fd9f773407a53f6f1814f40c0c [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. V. Stodden, “The legal framework for reproducible scientific research: Licensing and copyright,” Comput. Sci. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 35–40, 2009, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2009.19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. P. B. Hugenholtz and J. P. Quintais, “Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?,” IIC Int. Rev. Intellect. Prop. Compet. Law, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1190–1216, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. A. Levendowski, “How copyright law can fix artificial intelligence’s implicit bias problem,” Washingt. Law Rev., vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 579–630, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85049375044&partnerID=40&md5=1ff666b712e450376746f6f4bc24597f [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Levendowski et al., “HOW COPYRIGHT LAW CREATES BIASED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE,” 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.