The Colour of Copyright

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...

Garihma (to Care for)

∗ 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,

Moral Rights a Comparative Analysis

While information technologies present organizations with opportunities to become more competitive, unsettled social norms and lagging legislation guiding the use of these technologies present organizations and individuals with ethical dilemmas. This paper presents two studies investigating the relationship between intellectual property and privacy attitudes, Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology, and working in R&D and computer literacy in the form of programming experience. In Study 1, Machiavellians believed it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Programmers and R&D workers considered violating intellectual property rights more acceptable. Programmers did not consider violating privacy rights more acceptable, but R&D workers did. Finally, there was an interaction between Machiavellianism, programming and R&D. Machiavellians who also had programming experience or worked in R&D found violations of intellectual property much more acceptable. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by programming experience. In Study 2, idealists believed it was less acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Relativists found it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, though they did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Those with programming experience were more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, programming experience moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward these unethical information practices. Implications for diminishing unethical behavior among Machiavellians, Relativists, programmers and those in R&D are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanisms for regulating and protecting intellectual property rights in the context of the production of personal protective equipment in the context of a threat to national security. To this end, the study analysed Ukrainian legislation and international regulations governing intellectual property rights, particularly those of manufacturers of personal protective equipment. Thus, in the context of a threat to national security, the intellectual property rights of Ukrainian manufacturers of personal protective equipment were found to be crucial due to the military conflict and the need to protect both the population and the armed forces. The state must guarantee access to vital technologies while respecting the rights of producers, which makes the issue of intellectual property particularly relevant considering the growing demand for the latest developments in the personal protective equipment sector. Cooperation with international partners in the field of technology and intellectual property protection can help develop national production of personal protective equipment and reduce dependence on imported supplies. Government agencies should focus on developing policies that promote the protection of intellectual property rights and provide mechanisms to support manufacturers in critical situations. Raising awareness of producers about their rights and opportunities to protect intellectual property is a crucial step in strengthening their market position. It is essential to strike a balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the needs of society in the context of a threat to national security. Governments should consider temporary relaxation of rights in times of crisis to ensure overall security

This article introduces the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions and its Supplement on Security Rights in Intellectual Property, both of which are intended to provide guidance to States with regard to enacting legislation on secured transaction, in particular, regarding intellectual property. Based on the discussions provided therein, this article points to four elements to be included in the legislative framework for intellectual property financing: 1) that it should be a comprehensive regime for movable assets including intellectual property, 2) that it should be possible to create security rights in future intellectual property, 3) that it should provide priority rules for those financing the acquisition of intellectual property and 4) that it should contain rules on the law applicable to security rights in intellectual property. The article concludes that, while these innovative features once included in the legislative framework for intellectual property financing would foster the use of intellectual property as collateral in secured transactions, it is not enough, acknowledging that valuation of intellectual property is a practical barrier. In this context, this article urges the intellectual property community to develop standards for the assessment intellectual property based on the market mechanism with the understanding that secured transactions was, by nature, a risk-adverse transaction.

This research uses the fuzzy Delphi and Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) to analyze the key factors involved in evaluating and screening industry managers of intellectual property (IP) rights within Taiwan. Firms can utilize the key factors of human resource management to provide self-growth opportunities and obtain competitive advantage opportunities that can expand their global market share. This study summarizes the evaluation and screening criteria used for IP rights managers via a questionnaire distributed to 29 management experts, from the governmental departments related to IP rights body, and scholars with backgrounds in IP rights related teaching, who had actually participated in IP rights managers' specialty decisions, and who had employed fuzzy Delphi screening criteria, uses Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) calculate relative weight. The findings include five key competency factors: Evaluating IP rights, locating the core patent group, calculating the chance that patents will be granted, deciding the best time to patent, and deciding whether to apply for patents inland or overseas.

‘The Debauched Commons: A Dark Parable’ summarizes issues regarding intellectual property rights and immaterial culture through a nuanced reading of how First Nations Peoples worldwide have been forced by forms of neoliberal-capitalist exploitation of the knowledge commons to ring-fence and/or commodify their lived traditions, in many cases dating back 100,000 years and clearly predating any and all Western (First World) concepts of ownership. The intention of the structuralist-inspired reading of this enforced defensive position is to emphasize and clarify issues concerning prior art and moral rights, two of the most ambiguous and gamed elements of copyright and patent law. Drawing upon the international context of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and the Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Heritage (2003), this essay will focus, in part, on the travails of Aboriginals in Australia as representative of First Peoples worldwide and their long-exploited and long-expropriated traditions, inclusive of land, but foremost lived knowledge, but also their often compromised position vis-à-vis various Australian state and Commonwealth legislation concerning recognition of their copyright, moral rights, and intellectual property rights. In this complex dance between tradition, heritage, and law, the so-called public domain often also becomes a de facto warehouse for the eventual conversion of intangible rights to collectively held and stored cultural property, which is then leveraged and/or converted to cultural capital by both public institutions and private companies. The primary premise of the analytic to be applied is that commodification of knowledge is more or less co-equal to the digitization of culture and the regimes of expropriation and/or outright theft associated with platform cultures. Platform culture, in turn, implicates otherwise benign, or apparently benign institutions (for example, academia and the art world) claiming to advance understanding and resolution of the twin nemeses of post-contemporary cultural politics—diversity and justice. The subtle machinations of what has come to be called the art-academic industrial complex will thus be analyzed for implicit and explicit practices that are reducible to the appropriation of native rites and rights, and laws and lores, for self-serving reasons inclusive of radical-chic posturing and politically correct tokenism.

This thesis is titled The Right of Aboriginal Communities to Control their Culture: the Potential of Australian Legislation and Anthropological Work to Recognise this Right. This project grew from my experiences at the University of Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, The University of Queensland anthropology department, as well as my experiences at the Quandamooka Aboriginal Land and Sea Management Agency, Stradbroke Island.I became aware that Aboriginal people are still the lowest socio-economic group in Australia, still the most imprisoned people in Australia with the shortest life expectancy. Aboriginal groups remain under the control of the Australian Government and common law. Self-determination was removed from Federal Government Policy in 1998. Aboriginal customary law governs the ‘inheritance system’ of communal rights to their culture including heritage, knowledge, and land. Aboriginal customary law has only recently and partially been acknowledged by common law.Cultural heritage management is still dominated by archaeologists and anthropologists and their non-Aboriginal notions of preserving ‘traditional’ and ‘authentic’ Aboriginal culture. The Queensland heritage laws and federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage protection law function inadequately to address Aboriginal heritage management systems.Australia still fails to have responded at Statute Level to international intellectual property debates and United Nations conventions on Indigenous intellectual property. The Copyright and Patent Acts are inadequate methods of protecting Aboriginal knowledge and the Aboriginal social structures that govern its usage within Aboriginal societies.Improvements have been made within land legislation with the introduction of Native Title into common and statue law. However, non-Aboriginal land-holders are favoured in the negotiation of co-existing rights on Native Title land. Attempts have been made to recognise Aboriginal Customary rights and responsibilities to land within the Native Title Acts. However, similarly to other legislation relating to Aboriginal culture, eurocentric concepts constrain the Native Title Acts’ effectiveness in recognising Aboriginal notions of rights.There is urgent need for Australia to make changes within legislation relating to heritage, knowledge, and land to incorporate Aboriginal definitions of culture and its maintenance. There is also the need to make these legislations mutually supportive in order to reflect the interrelatedness of these rights in Aboriginal societies. The Aboriginal, and human right of Aboriginal communities to control their own culture is missing from Australian and Queensland legislation and should be included immediately.

<p>The project aims at theorising the idea of ‘festivalization’ of the local and global public sphere generated by performing arts festivals. The thesis challenges the concept of ‘festival’ in its popular framework of a celebratory event that is well-planned, culture specific and entertaining. I provide three different study models to accommodate my theoretical conceptualization and discuss the theory in detail in context of selected case studies. The research also seeks to investigate the politics around (re)presentation of indigeneity through the medium of theatre within various socio-political contexts through case studies from several Indigenous theatre groups located in Oceania and beyond. The project offers detailed discussion of the first two theoretical models developed by me in context of case studies from India and Aotearoa/New Zealand followed by an exploration of the artistic festivals and their implications within and beyond Oceania in context of my third and final study model. The theoretical models study theatre performances in the contexts of their representation, reception and efficacy within the festival generated space as well as the initiatives of Indigenous communities across the globe to create artistic festivals to celebrate their Indigeneity and authority over Indigenous arts. These two focuses together will locate the reception, representation and (re)production of Indigeneity through the medium of theatre within the festivalized space locally and globally. The third study model finally locates the festival itself within both local and global space to explore its political implications within the socio-political context. I also aim to investigate the politics behind provisions of ‘space’ and ‘funds’ for the international display of indigeneity through international performing arts festivals; and juxtapose the tourist centred performing arts festival against the festival created by the Indigenous communities through funding generated though ‘donations’ made by local communities. The discussions on this segment is focused on the politics of (mis)presentation of indigeneity through hybrid performances alongside exotic traditional indigenous performances on international stages. As an Indian citizen, crossing multiple boundaries between the so-called third world, indigenous world and metropolitan culture, I am aware about, respect and acknowledge the Indigenous intellectual and cultural property rights. Being a non-Indigenous researcher working with Indigenous communities, I followed the principles of ‘decolonising methodologies’ (Smith, 1999). I am aware and adhered to the matters including self-determination, cultural aspiration, socio-economic mediation, culturally preferred pedagogy, collective philosophy, extended family structures, respect to Treaty of Waitangi and growing respectful relationships as essential aspects of conducting this research. I have applied collectively chosen pedagogy and philosophy when I conducted the interviews within Indigenous communities and when wrote about them in my thesis. Indigenous theatre within the context of performing arts festival is a rarely explored area of post-colonial studies which makes the present project significant in itself. The project will document original ideas directly from indigenous theatre practitioners and their experiences of participation in international performing arts festivals. And finally, I believe this study could contribute to a better understanding of the politics of international performing arts festivals in (re) producing indigeneity, distinct from their conventional reception as an exotic 'other' culture.</p>

Dominance in the market gives businesses many advantages, enabling them to change business dynamics and influence customer choices. This dominance, while used improperly, can damage clients via way of means of stifling competition and innovation. The distinct rights that intellectual property rights deliver authors and inventors over their works, on the alternative hand, lead them to critical equipment for selling innovation. Abuse of dominance and Intellectual Property rights are associated while dominant corporations make the most of their intellectual property rights to stifle competition. This article attempts to examines the feasible reasons of the subject matter, which includes inflated licensing charges, unwarranted litigation, and patent hold-up tactics. The interplay among abuse of dominance with intellectual property rights (IPR) marks a pivotal factor withinside the improvement of competition law. This article captures the essence of this complicated connection and affords a window into its complicated dynamics. It further attempts to emphasise the critical factor of convergence among those fields: the sensitive stability among selling innovation and retaining marketplace opposition receives disenchanted while dominant groups use their intellectual property rights to impede competition. Such abuse of IPR might also additionally take many unique forms, from extortionate licensing charges to pointless court cases meant to save your competition from coming into the marketplace. Case studies that function an examples from across the globe provide important insights into the rational consequences of intellectual property rights violations. The difficulties in finding the appropriate stability are demonstrated by notable instances such as the legal actions related to Qualcomm's SEP and Microsoft's antitrust actions in the EU. Emerging technologies in the virtual age, like as biotechnology and artificial intelligence, raises new concerns about supremacy and intellectual property rights. One example of an increasing burden in 5G technology is Standard-essential patents (SEPs). Using well-known case studies and international regulatory reactions, this article also attempts to provide a brief discussion of the issues and headaches associated with the abuse of dominance within the framework of intellectual property rights. Strict regulatory scrutiny is necessary to prevent dominant marketplace contributors from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. The conflict between preventing anti-competitive behaviour and promoting innovation through intellectual property rights safety is a fundamental dilemma. Finding a balance between the two needs is essential if one is to sell innovation and keep markets competitive. In this regard, the author attempts to highlight how crucial it is to handle the junction between rights to intellectual property and abuse of dominance in an appropriate manner. It draws attention to the necessity of prudent legislation that preserves innovative incentives while maintaining sincere competition. In order to fully utilize intellectual property rights for the goodness of society, it is imperative to achieve this delicate balance. In a global economic system that is rapidly changing, legislators, lawyers, corporations, and students must all comprehend and navigate the intricate relationship between abuse of power and intellectual property rights. This article lays the groundwork for additional investigation and debate in the article by offering a concise yet comprehensive synopsis of the key traits and problems in this intricate field.

This chapter begins by defining intellectual property rights as the protection of the ‘creation’ of the mind and describing many different rights that are protected by both statute and common law. It divides intellectual property into two broad categories: industrial property and copyright. It also explores the various statutory and common law intellectual property regimes that have their own idiosyncratic criteria in order to qualify for the protection they offer. The chapter distinguishes relevant intellectual property rights for pharmaceutical product marketing authorisation holders from ‘traditional’ intellectual property rights to regulatory exclusivities. It explores the characteristics of regulatory exclusivities that are akin to other intellectual property rights but have their own unique criteria for qualification and enforcement.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts "intellectual property" and "right of intellectual property", as well as to the possibility to use them as equivalent concepts. The author considers the features of a broad understanding of the intellectual property concept, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. According to this approach intellectual relations are only one type of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which only occasionally acts as the subject of legal regulation. Taking into account the above facts, the difference between the meaning of the concepts "intellectual property" (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and "intellectual property right" is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determined on the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc.; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept "object of intellectual property rights" is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights. The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in socio-philosophical sense that satisfies the social, economic, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense, an object by its nature is a blessing for a person; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statuses and roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept "intellectual property" as identical with the concept “intellectual property right” is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concepts of “intellectual property” and “intellectual property right” have the same sense in the legislation and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights to such objects.

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