Access to data for training algorithms in machine learning: copyright law and right-stacking

The Colour of Copyright

Contents: Volume I Acknowledgements Introduction Rohan Kariyawasam PART I WTO, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ANTITRUST 1. Wonki Min (2000), 'Telecommunications Regulations: Institutional Structures and Responsibilities' 2. Yoshiko Kurisaki (1995), 'The Changing Role of Telecommunications in the Economy: Globalisation and Its Impact on National Telecommunications Policy' 3. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'International Telecommunications' 4. Peter L. Smith and Bjoern Wellenius (1999), 'Mitigating Regulatory Risk in Telecommunications' 5. Marco C.E.J. Bronckers and Pierre Larouche (1997), 'Telecommunication Services and the World Trade Organization' 6. Lee Tuthill (1996), 'Users' Rights? The Multilateral Rules on Access to Telecommunications' 7. Lee Tuthill (1997), 'The GATS and New Rules for Regulators' 8. Mark Naftel and Lawrence J. Spiwak (2000), 'The WTO and the Reference Paper: An Ostensible Blueprint for Entry' 9. Markus Fredebeul-Krein and Andreas Freytag (1997), 'Telecommunications and WTO Discipline: An Assessment of the WTO Agreement on Telecommunication Services' 10. Timothy Denton (2002), 'Protocol Interfaces Are the New Bottlenecks: What the Internet Means for Telecom Regulation' 11. Rohan Kariyawasam (2005), 'Defining Dominance for Bits and Bytes: A New Layering Theory for Interpreting Significant Market Power?' 12. Sonali Singh (2006), 'The Telmex Dispute at the WTO: Competition Makes a Backdoor Entry' 13. Eleanor M. Fox (2006), 'The WTO's First Antitrust Case - Mexican Telecom: A Sleeping Victory for Trade and Competition' PART II THE CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC INTANGIBLES IN THE WTO 14. Peter Hill (1999), 'Tangibles, Intangibles and Services: A New Taxonomy for the Classification of Output' 15. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'The Classification of Electronic Intangibles in the WTO' 16. Claude E. Barfield (2003), 'Electronic Commerce and the Gats Negotiations' 17. Harald Sander (2003), 'Electronic Commerce and Gats Negotiation (Some Comments on a Paper by Claude E. Barfield)' 18. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2006), 'The Internet, Cross-Border Trade in Services, and the GATS: Lessons from US-Gambling' 19. Federico Ortino (2006), 'Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique' 20. Maria Veronica Perez Asinari (2006), 'Internet Gambling and Betting Services: When the GATS' Rules Are Not Applied Due to the Public Morals/Public Order Exception. What Lessons Can Be Learnt?' Name Index Volume II: Acknowledgements Introduction Rohan Kariyawasam PART I WTO AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 1. Heinz Hauser and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2000/2001), 'A Call for the WTO E-Commerce Initiative' 2. Daniel Piazolo (2001), 'Multilateral and European Responses to E-Commerce' 3. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2003), 'The Digital Trade Agenda of the U.S.: Parallel Tracks of Bilateral, Regional and Multinational Liberalization' 4. Michael Hart and Ramesh Chaitoo (1999), 'Electronic Commerce and International Trade Rules' 5. Olivier Cattaneo and Julia Nielson (2002), 'Regulation of Services Traded Electronically' 6. Rosemary Morris (2000), 'Electronic Commerce: A Cluster Approach to the Negotiation of Input Services' PART II INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BILATERALISM AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 7. Keith E. Maskus (1998), 'The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer' 8. Olivier Cattaneo (2003), 'Intellectual Property Rights in the New Economy: Technological Changes and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights' 9. Carlos M. Correa (2000), 'Implications of Intellectual Property Rights for the Access to and Use of Information Technologies in Developing Countries' 10. Peter Drahos (2001), 'Bilateralism in Intellectual Property' PART III DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, THE NEW ECONOMY AND THE WTO 11. Sanjeev Dewan, Dale Ganley and Kenneth L. Kraemer (2005), 'Across the Digital Divide: A Cross-Country, Multi-Technology Analysis of the Determinants of IT Penetration' 12. Lars T. Soeftestad and Maung K. Sein (2003), 'ICT and Devolopment: East is East and West is West and the Twain may yet Meet. On the Process of Implementing an ICT-Strategy in the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)' 13. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'Developing Countries and Telecommunications' 14. Peter F. Cowhey and Mikhail M. Kilmenko (2001), 'Implementing Telecommunications Liberalization in Developing Countries after the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services' 15. Arvind Panagariya (2000), 'E-Commerce, WTO and Developing Countries' 16. Catherine L. Mann (2000), 'Electronic Commerce in Developing Countries: Issues for Domestic Policy and WTO Negotiations' 17. David Vivas Eugui (2001), 'Issues on the Relationship Between E-Commerce and Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO: Implications for Developing Countries' Name Index

This book examines the contribution which intellectual property rights can make in the struggle for food security in developing countries. The book consists of 11 chapters. Chapter 1 locates intellectual property rights within the armoury of food security policies. Chapter 2 deals with definitional issues and examines the role of intellectual property rights in incentivizing agricultural research and development. Chapter 3 examines the international landscape of intellectual property and the approaches taken to the relationship between intellectual property rights, agricultural biotechnology, access to biological resources, food security and globalization which are taken by the WTO, FAO, CBD and WIPO among the various international and development agencies. Plant variety rights (PVRs) are a specially created form of intellectual property right originally minted to encourage agricultural innovation and Chapter 4 examines the effectiveness of PVRs in a food security context. Agricultural innovation is in part dependent upon access of researchers to the genetic resources of the biodiverse countries of the South. Chapter 5 considers the attempts to construct an international regime to secure this access. The important role of traditional farmers in preserving landraces and cultivars from which improvements can be derived has generated for a call for the recognition of farmers' rights, and this is examined in Chapter 6 together with agitation for the protection of the traditional knowledge which often informs access to the useful genetic resources. Chapter 7 examines the intellectual property implications of the use of genetically modified (GM) crops as a technological solution to food insecurity. The protection of GM crops is achieved through patent protection and Chapter 9 looks at the competition law implications of patent licensing, patent pools and patent thickets. An old intellectual property device that underpinned the commercial development of European agricultural marketing is the geographical indication, and Chapter 8 examines the contribution it might make to achieving food security. Returning to the theme of the role of intellectual property law in incentivizing innovation, Chapter 10 examines its role in promoting agricultural research. The concluding chapter proposes a number of recommendations for action in deploying intellectual property law in the struggle for food security.

Using historical and comparative legal methods, the author in this paper analyzes the information system as a product of the development of information technologies, through the protection of computer programs and databases by copyright, as well as the rights of database producers. The paper analyzes the legal protection of computer programs under copyright law in Serbia with a comparative presentation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, the differences between the legal concept of a computer program and the technical concept of software, computer programs created in an employment relationship or by order through a comparative overview, the rights of authors of computer programs, substantive limitations of copyright on computer programs in the context of the development of information systems and artificial intelligence, as well as the legal protection of databases as copyrighted works and as a special sui generis related right of the database producer, with a particular focus on training artificial intelligence. Furthermore, it addresses measures for ensuring the protection of the rights of computer programs and databases, and finally, the legal protection of information systems as a precursor to the development of sophisticated artificial intelligence systems. Finally, at the end of the paper there is a conclusion in which the analysis of the positive legislation from the above issues (de lege lata) and proposals for introducing new terms such as "information system", as well as amendments and supplements to existing legal solutions in the field of copyright and related law (de lege ferenda). The significance of this work is that it has thoroughly analyzed the issue of protecting one or more computer programs that together constitute software that, by managing electronic databases, together constitute information systems that represent the foundation of the legal protection of artificial intelligence from the perspective of intellectual property rights. Also, the paper presents a hypothesis for creating a new legal term "information system" that should, through the prism of intellectual property rights, describe the complexity of a single product on which there are a number of copyrights on different products and where there is a special sui generis right of the database producer, which represents the forerunner of artificial intelligence.

Reviewed by: No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization J. G. Matthews No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization. By Eva Hemmungs Wirtén . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. xii, 224 pp. $50.00. ISBN 0-8020-8835-X. Eva Hemmungs Wirtén's No Trespassing is an insightful exploration of the influences technological change and globalization wield on notions of authorship and intellectual property rights. The matter of cultural ownership lies at the heart of this book, and the author brilliantly shows how it describes the historical, dynamic tensions between private ownership of and public access to information. Indeed, the very term "cultural ownership" juxtaposes two concepts that might seem at odds. Broadly defined, "culture" denotes a common historical, social, and artistic heritage shared by a group. "Ownership," on the other hand, describes entitlements purchased by individuals and other entities with capital to spend. In many ways, suggests Hemmungs Wirtén, the ambivalence between private ownership and public access sponsors the development of copyright and intellectual property law and legislates who controls access to information, both nationally and internationally. Beginning with a reading of Victor Hugo's inaugural address to the 1878 Exposition Universelle and its subsequent influence upon the development of international copyright laws, Hemmungs Wirtén proceeds to skillfully weave together chapters on the English translation and publication of Peter Høeg's Smilla's Sense of Snow; the enduring impact that the development of photocopy machines have had on copyright legislation; media as commodities; the challenges of developing cultural property rights that are different from postcolonial and imperialistic paradigms of ownership and trade; and the safeguarding of public domain rights in respect to contemporary attempts (in the United States) to extend copyright privileges. As this summary indicates, Hemmungs Wirtén's breadth of inquiry isremarkable. Her ability to express clearly this complex topic, particularly its formidable legal aspects, is all the more impressive considering her academic background, which is in literature and information science. The author is most [End Page 291] compelling, however, when she focuses on a specific event, author, and/or work and considers its historical, legal, and theoretical significance to her topic, as she does in the first three and in the concluding chapters of this work. While chapters 4 and 5 are informative discussions on the economics of copyright and the cultural dimensions of intellectual property, respectively, they lack the interpretive dimension that distinguishes the other sections. Despite these criticisms, No Trespassing is a remarkably readable and judiciously documented volume. Chapter 2, "Inventing F. David: Author(ing) Translation," is particularly compelling in its consideration of the translation problem. Is translation a type of authorship? What are the publishing rights of authors and translators? Who has the "last word" on what translation makes it into print? No Trespassing is especially relevant in a day and age when individual rights are constantly compromised by aggressive privatization throughout the world. As global interdependence and technological progress shrink the planet, the gap between who controls and who has access to information treacherously widens. Hemmungs Wirtén convincingly argues that copyright and intellectual property rights litigation perpetuates postcolonial cycles of cultural imperialism that further divide and oppress individuals by treating information, including cultural property, as a commodity. In such a market even cultural goods and services traditionally held in the public domain, such as literature and art, are accessible for a fee. The title calls to mind lurid orange-and-black signs posted on fence posts and alley entrances warning people to stay out or stay away on pain of penalty. It evokes a sense of peril and punishment. Ironically, this book invites readers to consider timely, complex cultural and legal issues in lucid, respectful prose. No Trespassing deserves a wide readership, including students of cultural studies, publishing history, and new media. Readers interested in relationships between copyright and authorship as well as law and literary production will find this book a compelling resource. Likewise, librarians and information ethicists interested in copyright as well as the development of information regulation and data-sharing standards may discover new arguments to underscore freedom to information positions and policies that are...

Numerous studies predict that developing countries with low human capital may not benefit from the strengthening of intellectual property rights. The authors extend an influential theoretical framework to highlight the role of intellectual property rights in the process of innovation and structural change. The resulting theory is consistent with a stylized fact that appears in the data, namely that countries with poor intellectual-property protection may accumulate human capital without a corresponding increase in research and development investment as a share of national income. The model predicts that without minimum intellectual-property protection, additional education may result in more imitation rather than innovation. The preponderance of the econometric evidence presented in this paper suggests that interactions between human capital and intellectual property rights determine global patterns of research and development effort, and intellectual property rights tend to raise the effect of education on the incidence of research and development.

This comparative research paper examines the protection of performers' rights in copyright law, focusing on the right to be identified as the performer and the right to object to derogatory treatment of performances. Through an analysis of legal provisions, treaties, and case law, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the scope, limitations, and enforcement of these rights in various jurisdictions. The research explores historical development, international standards, and challenges in implementing and enforcing rights. The findings contribute valuable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and performers seeking to enhance the protection of performers' rights within copyright law. The study aims to foster a balanced framework that preserves performers' creative contributions and maintains a harmonized copyright ecosystem. Key Words: Right, Performer, Artistic, Copyright, Protection

Legal protection of intellectual property is based on exclusive rights, which allow the subject to exercise in respect of a particular object of authority to own, use and dispose of it. According to Art. 418 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, such a right is inviolable, because no one can be deprived of it or restricted in its exercise, except in cases clearly defined by law. These restrictions are usually imposed in the public or state interest. Thus, the legislation of Ukraine allows for the restriction of rights in emergency situations (epidemic, catastrophe, natural disaster, etc.). Under these conditions, their use is allowed without the permission of the copyright holder, but with the mandatory payment of compensation. Thus, subjective rights are usually limited to the benefit of state, public and public interests. Any restrictions, termination, revocation of subjective rights are applied solely by law. Most often, such restrictions apply to property rights to intellectual property rights. These limitations are significant. The monopoly of the right holder provides an opportunity to prohibit the use of objects to which the rights belong to him. However, in order to establish a balance between its interests and the interests of society, the state law allows the restriction of rights to intellectual property, which do not create significant obstacles to the realization of property rights and the legitimate interests of intellectual property rights. The limit of law is all the possibilities that a person is able to acquire for himself in connection with the legal definition of his natural rights. Restriction of the right is, as a rule, actions of the third party which are directed on impossibility of realization by the subject of the rights in full. The purpose of the article is to define the concept and essence of restriction of rights, their role in the exercise of intellectual property rights.

Innovation can be of two kinds: technological and business model innovations. The goal of innovation is to create value through implementation of viable commercial solutions to customer needs, wants, challenges, problems, or business opportunities that are open to exploitation. The primary role of IPRs is to protect inventions and innovations. The question is: “Do intellectual property rights (IPRs) promote innovation?” Though many expect to receive a clear “Yes” or “No” answer to this question, the right answer might be, “It depends.” This needs insightful analysis. Not all inventions lead to innovations. In fact, inventions made without any commercial understanding are unlikely to be of business interest. Naturally, IPRs protecting such inventions of little or no business interest do not promote innovation. However, IPRs of this kind could still create an alternative stream of revenue to the firm via licensing or sale, provided the firm knows how to effectively manage its intellectual assets. On the other hand, inventions with a strong business focus have a much higher probability of leading to successful innovations. IPRs protecting such inventions and innovations become part of the intellectual capital of firms, affording unique products/services, contributing to protected growth and competitive advantage, and attracting the attention of investors and shareholders. Consequently, this leads to higher market capitalization of such firms and raises the market expectations of shareholders and investors of even higher returns on their investments. Thus, such IPRs actively promote innovation. This paper presents evidence for the above hypothesis based on examples of firms from both the USA and India and the role of IPRs (patents, designs, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and geographical indications) in promoting technological and business model innovations.

Copyright's interest in promoting creative production is often described as requiring a "balance" between exclusion and access rights. Owners of copyright receive exclusive rights to control copies of their works, which enables authors to earn returns on their creations through sales or licensing transactions. But as important to promoting creation are the user rights in copyright law which permit building on the work of predecessors. The necessity for balance in order to promote creation is clearly evident in the documentary film industry, where producers rely on copyright ownership to facilitate the dissemination of their works through broadcasters and other distributors, and on user rights to incorporate excerpts of other copyrighted material in their work. This article draws on a collaborative South African research project that has been working since 2008 to document influences of copyright law on the production of documentary films. The results of that research, summarised in the first part of the article, show that South African filmmakers are hampered by a legal environment that denies them copyright ownership in the majority of their projects while also denying them adequate rights to use, in their own works, elements of the works of others. The second part of the article describes capacity-building approaches and legal reforms that could be advantageous to the local film industry.

From a legal perspective, analyze the connotation and logical relationship of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, point out the Legal dilemma in protecting Emei martial arts intellectual property rights, and then propose solu-tions to the problems. The study believes that the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts refer to the intellectual property rights based on the intellec-tual achievements and commercial logos of Emei martial arts. The legal dilemma in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts mainly manifests as follows: the identity of the rights subject of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts and the intangible cultural heritage of Emei martial arts is the root cause of the conflict between public and private interests; to some extent, the sports nature of the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts has influenced the legal recognition of this part of Emei martial arts intel-lectual property rights in the academic community; the inadequacy of the legal system is the fundamental reason why the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts are difficult to obtain comprehensive protection. Based on this, the study proposes that technological innovation is a logical prerequisite for the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. It can be achieved by extracting the classic techniques of Emei martial arts, constructing repre-sentative martial arts routines, and creating Emei martial arts competition pro-jects; The improvement of the legal system is the legal foundation for the pro-tection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. In this process, it is necessary to particularly strengthen the important position and role of the Sports Law in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, and improve the basic position and auxiliary function of relevant intellectual property laws in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts; The enrichment of theory is a powerful argument for the protection of in-tellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. Strengthening theory must be combined with the characteristics of sports, in order to build a solid legal foun-dation for the protection of the object of rights. In addition, the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts should focus on benefits, which requires balancing public and private interests and promoting the realization of public welfare through private rights protection

This chapter investigates the economic role of intellectual property rights in the national and international context and discusses the pros and cons of intellectual property protection for developing countries. It highlights the international dimensions of infringement of intellectual property rights. The chapter explores the use of country case studies and investigates the economic performance and government policies on foreign investment, trade, indigenous development, technology transfer and intellectual property protection of the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand. It focuses on some conclusions on the relationship between economic development and protection of intellectual property rights in developing countries. Some Southeast Asian nations which had adopted more defensive strategies towards intellectual property protection have reassessed their contribution to domestic technological and creative development. The chapter discusses the foundation for the demands, namely infringement of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and semiconductor chip designs in Southeast Asian nations.

Intellectual Property Rights and Green Technologies from Rio to Rio: An Impossible Dialogue?

∗ LLB (University of Asmara), LLM (Cornell University), JSD candidate, Cornell Law School. 1 Copyright law is generally categorised into economic and moral rights of authors. Almost all countries of the world today protect the economic rights of authors. Certain countries, for instance the US, have a very limited moral rights concept. One of the challenges that creators of works of authorship suffer in this age of technology is that it has become so easy and cheap to reproduce works of authorship. The cost of producing a song is much more than burning it on a CD. In addition, the intangibility of the property rights in creative works also allows the non-rivalrous consumption of the good. This non-rivalrous character does not deter the buyer of an original CD from allowing his or her friend to make a copy of it. Both the original and copy CDs can be consumed at the same time without reducing the value of the original CD for the original buyer. 2 John Stuart Mill, the grand philosopher of liberalism, explained how intellectual property rights can incentivise creations. He emphasised the need for granting authors a limited time monopoly for their creations. The debate about whether granting authors limited monopoly rights serves as an incentive for creativity is as prevalent today as it was in the 1800s (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (2002), p. 9, available at http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/Ch1final.pdf (accessed 8 September 2010)). However, it is not necessarily true to assume that people invest time and effort to create works because of the incentives granted to them by copyright laws. The Creative Commons is a non-profit organisation that is dedicated to making access to information easy. For instance, the movement with Mozilla Firefox and other open source software is one of them. For further discussion on the works of the Creative Commons movement, see http://creativecommons.org/about/ (accessed 3 June 2010). Contemporary copyright law grants limited monopoly of protection in the sense that the copyright holder does not have absolute rights. The term of protection is limited in time. It is also limited for certain forms of exploitations that fall within the general exceptions of copyright laws. See, for instance, section 102 of the 17 USC (United States Code). 3 Historically, in the 1950s there was a prevalent view that the rationale for intellectual property rights protection was mainly to protect against retaliation from foreign governments. For instance,

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are significant because India is a signatory to TRIPS agreement and member of WTO. Intellectual property rights are the monopoly rights enjoyed by the original creator. It includes exclusive rights allocated to the creator for reaping the profits of his creation by his intellectual wit and innovation. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are the rules which are formed to protect the inventions from being copied by others. This is done in order to protect the economic value of the new creation which is done by the innovator. Granting Patents rights, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets are some of the main forms of IPRs. The awareness about IPRs is essential for the youth so as to develop their entrepreneurial skills which will help them to be the leaders in every field. A field survey on awareness about IPR has conducted for a specified purpose with a definite objective with specific community or target group. It uses questionnaires or interviews so as to assess knowledge of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and its types such as patents, copyrights, trademarks. The purpose of this study is to examine the awareness of intellectual property rights (IPR) among youth i.e. college students. The significance of this study can be understood in two ways. - (i) to sensitize the youth regarding IPRs (ii) to make them understand the role of infringements of IPR. Questionnaire containing 20 questions was designed on various aspects of IPR awareness covering definitions of IPR and its different types -patents, copyrights, trademarks, process of registration of IPR like patents, IPR infringement and its consequences, IPR laws, IPR- mechanism, personal experiences on IPR. The survey gave optimist results about the awareness assessment of the youth about Intellectual Property Rights awareness. Although many of the respondents did not have 100% clarity a bout IPR yet they tried to respond well. However, more conceptual clarity and practical guidance is required to sensitize them about IPR and provide them actual knowledge ab out IPR.