scholarly journals Student Selection of Content Licenses in OER-enabled Pedagogy

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Williams ◽  
Eric Werth
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Liberal Arts ◽  
Educational Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
First Year ◽  
First Year Students ◽  
Creative Commons

Students acting as content creators is an emergent trend in the field of open educational practice. As more faculty turn towards the use of open pedagogy or OER-enabled Pedagogy, they must be prepared to address concerns related to intellectual property rights of student work. This article addresses student concerns related to intellectual property rights, specifically related to Creative Commons licensing as well as faculty awareness of use of Creative Commons licensing. Research was conducted at a small, liberal arts college in the Appalachian Region of the United States. All first-year students engaged in an OER-enabled Pedagogy project where they collaboratively created a reader for the First Year Studies seminar course. Following class, students and faculty were interviewed regarding how dynamics of intellectual property and Creative Commons licensing impacted the educational process. Results indicate students are open to sharing their works with credit, and value helping others. Faculty tend to be unfamiliar with Creative Commons licensing and must balance the desire to help students understand licensing and prescribing their own preferences when asked about licensing selection. 

Protecting User Interfaces

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Shemtov
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
User Interfaces ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Graphical User Interfaces ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection

This chapter examines the scope of protection to which graphical user interfaces may be eligible under various intellectual property rights: namely, trade marks, unfair-competition laws, design rights, copyright, and patents. It first considers the extent of copyright protection over a software product’s ‘look-and-feel’ elements, with particular emphasis on graphical user interfaces protection under US and EU laws. It then discusses trade-mark, trade-dress, and unfair-competition protection for graphical user interfaces, along with intellectual property rights protection for design patents and registered designs. Finally, it describes the patent protection for graphical user interfaces in the United States and at the European Patent Office.

Club goods, intellectual property rights, and profitability in the information economy

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman Mark Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Wage Inequality ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Corporate Strategy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Club Goods ◽  
Financial Firms ◽  
Financial Power

AbstractAre club goods becoming more widespread in developed economies, and, if so, what is the broader significance of this trend? Club goods are as salient for the profitability of non-financial firms as for finance. First, corporate strategy today largely revolves around the generation or acquisition of intellectual property rights and other club/franchise goods. Second, financialization is not just about the credit relationship between financial firms on the one side and non-financial corporate and household borrowers on the other, but also about Main Street's ability to use financial power to suppress competition in its own markets. Third, firms’ strategic reliance on IPRs and club goods more generally has magnified both profit and wage inequality in the broader economy. This inequality combines with changes in corporate structure to produce a significant part of the household level income inequality we currently observe in the United States. Fourth, all these processes are ineluctably political, because the state necessarily constitutes club or franchise goods, just like any property right. But the quantity and quality of those property rights is an indeterminate outcome of struggles among firms over the size of and shares of the pool of profits in a given national and global economy.

Intellectual Property Protection for Biologics: Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement Fails to Deliver

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina M Lybecker
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection ◽  
Data Exclusivity ◽  
Property Rights Protection

Biopharmaceutical research and development is overwhelmingly focused in the U.S. becasue here it is incentivized and encouraged through a robust intellectual property rights protection environment.  Across the board, the United States provides the most comprehensive, effective intellectual property rights protections for biopharmaceuticals.  As a result, the industry locates here, researches here, and thrives here.  With an acknowledgement of the importance of intellectual property rights as well as the wider benefits of biopharmaceutical research and development, it's tremendously disappointing that the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement fails to deliver sufficient IP protections for biologics.  This article explores the importance of a rigorous intellectual property environemtn for the biopharmaceutical industry through an examination of the importance of data exclusivity provisions.  Such protection is critical as the number, complexity and cost of clinical trials increases.  Technology inevitably evolves faster than the legal architecture that surrounds it.  As technology evolves, making the development of new biologic vaccines and therapies possible, society's commitment to incentivize innovation and protect it must be enshrined in the intellectual property protections of agreements such as the TPP.

USE OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTED WORKS IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 607
Author(s):  
Liene Vindele ◽  
Renāte Cāne
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Step Test ◽  
Legal Norms

Copyright is one of the intellectual property rights whose main activity is to promote creativity and protect the ownership of the author. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to certain restrictions.In the Berne Convention, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and also WIPO Copyright Treaty embodied so-called “three-step test” allowing exceptions to copyright protection. They state that exceptions to copyright protection are admissible only in specific cases; if they comply with the rules of normal exploitation of the author's work; and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate rights of the author.While respecting the restrictions contained in international conventions, the Latvian Copyright Law also lays down various restrictions, when the author's work can be used without a special permit for the use of the author's work or for free, such as in the educational or research process. The free use of copyright-protected materials constitutes a restriction on the economic rights of copyright holders. These restrictions aim to strike a balance between the rights of the author and the interests of the public. Although copyright-protected works can be used in education almost everywhere in the world, restrictions on the exercise of these rights have not been clearly established.The aim of this paper is to research limits use of copyright-protected works in the educational process. Basis for this analysis will be the international and national legal framework about copyright exceptions in educational process.In the development of the research used an analytical method of scientific research, as well as a method of interpreting grammatical, teleological and historical legal norms. For the conclusions used inductive and deductive method of scientific research. 

scholarly journals Comparative characteristics of intellectual property judges: Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-111
Author(s):  
M.I. Logvynenko ◽  
M.G. Shunko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Specialized Courts

The article deals with the comparative characterization of specialized courts for the protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine and developed foreign countries, such as Great Britain and the USA. The article deals with the historical background of the creation of a specialized court on intellectual property in Ukraine, as well as the legal systems in the field of protection of intellectual property rights of Great Britain and the USA, the analysis and consideration of the current judicial systems – in the consideration of civil and criminal cases in the field of intellectual property. property, litigation of the patent authorities of England and Wales, types of specialized courts and their unique procedural features. The nuances and practice of law enforcement activities of judges in the United States, the types and levels of penalties in civil and criminal cases, as well as the divergence of lawsuits and pre-trial procedural arrangements are outlined. The article reveals the similarity of the UK and US legal systems with those currently in force in Ukraine in dealing with intellectual property cases. The identified deficiencies relate to territorial inaccessibility, instances of inconsistency, and imperfection of the judicial system, as well as the defects of the national intellectual property and legal frameworks in place in comparison with the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the field of intellectual property. After researching and analyzing the intellectual property rights protection systems of leading countries in the world, such as England and the United States of America, the conclusions were clearly drawn as to the advisability of setting up a specialized court on intellectual property in Ukraine and the risks involved.

scholarly journals Is Creative Commons a Panacea for Managing Digital Humanities Intellectual Property Rights?

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Ding
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Academic Librarians ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
The Us

Digital humanities is an academic field applying computational methods to explore topics and questions in the humanities field. Digital humanities projects, as a result, consist of a variety of creative works different from those in traditional humanities disciplines. Born to provide free, simple ways to grant permissions to creative works, Creative Commons (CC) licenses have become top options for many digital humanities scholars to handle intellectual property rights in the US. However, there are limitations of using CC licenses that are sometimes unknown by scholars and academic librarians. By analyzing case studies and influential lawsuits about intellectual property rights in the digital age, this article advocates for a critical perspective of copyright education and provides academic librarians with specific recommendations about advising digital humanities scholars to use CC licenses with four limitations in mind: 1) the pitfall of a free license; 2) the risk of irrevocability; 3) the ambiguity of NonCommercial and NonDerivative licenses; 4) the dilemma of ShareAlike and the open movement.

Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamnad Basheer
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Performance ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Suspension Model ◽  
The U.S

The biblical David vs. Goliath paradigm plays out very frequently in international trade disputes. In 2003, a tiny island state, Antigua and Barbuda (hereafter Antigua) took on the United States (hereafter U.S.) in a WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute, alleging that the U.S. violated the General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereafter GATS) obligations by effectively foreclosing its borders to overseas internet gambling services. It won at both the panel and the appellate levels. However, to this date, it has been unable to secure compliance by the U.S.This paper considers “cross retaliation" by suspending intellectual property rights under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (hereafter TRIPS) as a viable remedy for developing countries such as Antigua that often find themselves at the receiving end of WTO inconsistent measures maintained by countries that are economically more powerful.Towards this end, it proposes a “Tiered IP suspension model," where certain kinds of Intellectual Property (hereafter IP) are targeted first for suspension before others, depending on the ease of objectively ascertaining the harm caused by the unauthorized use of such IP and/or the potential to induce compliance by the defaulting state. Illustratively, copyrights over sound recordings that have established rates for public performance are targeted first. If working with this tier of IP subject matter does not yield desired results, then the complaining state moves on to other IP where it is relatively more difficult to compute the loss caused to the IP owner (such as pharmaceutical patents) but which may be a more powerful tool to induce compliance. Such a model could be useful for a large number of developing countries, such as India and Brazil, that often find that, despite WTO victories, scofflaw states such as the U.S. and EU fail to comply. Towards this end, this paper offers a very concrete “development" oriented international trade law remedy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document