Electronic Art and the Law: Intellectual Property Rights in Cyberspace

Leonardo ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Search
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Direct Impact ◽  
Electronic Art ◽  
Collaborative Networking ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Definition Of

The dematerialization of art that began in the 1960s has reached new heights with the use of electronic media. We are at an important crossroads in defining intellectual property rights that will have a direct impact on the way we create and disseminate electronic art in the future. This paper examines the historical evolution of the definition of “author” in copyright law. The paper shows how current copyright legislation and recent court decisions do not address the plasticity of the medium and the new forms of authorship that are defined by the artistic use of techniques such as virtual reality, artificial intelligence, hypermedia links and collaborative networking.

PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN UKRAINE: MODERN REALITIES AND PROSPECTS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliia Tovstohan ◽  
◽  
Serhii Ivanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Current System ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
General Concept ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Definition Of

The scientific article examines the modern mechanism of protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine. Attention is paid to the historically first using of the concept of intellectual property rights in international law and the shortcomings of this definition. The legal definition of this concept contained in the Civil Code of Ukraine is analyzed. It is concluded that the legislative enshrinement of intellectual property rights is evidence of its recognition by the state, and such a right applies to special objects, the list of which is enshrined at both national and international levels. The question of the relationship between the concepts of "protection" and "defense" of civil rights is covered. The main groups of approaches of scientists to the solution of this problem are indicated. An approach that defines "protection" as a general concept for "defense" is supported, where "protection" is a broader concept that covers the term "defense". Emphasis is placed on the fact that although these legal categories are related, they cannot be identified. The main features that distinguish these concepts are listed, and the features of "defense" as an independent concept are highlighted. There are given examples of definition of the concept of protection of intellectual property rights given by scientists. Based on these definitions, the main features of this term are summarized. The issue of forms of protection (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) has been studied. The general and special order within the jurisdictional form is distinguished. It is noted about the peculiarities of self-defense as a non-jurisdictional form. The focus is on the judicial (general) procedure for protection of intellectual property rights as the main one. Possible ways of protection (civil, administrative, criminal, and criminal) are analyzed. The problems and shortcomings of the current system of legal protection and protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine are analyzed. Both reports from international partners and research by Ukrainian scientists were used. The authors outline ways to solve existing problems. The conclusions of the study are formulated and the possibility of further scientific research in this area is indicated.

Intellectual Property: Theory, Privilege, and Pragmatism

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam D. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Social Constructions ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Definition Of

In the most general terms, this article focuses on the tension between competing justifications of intellectual property. Section I examines the nature and definition of economic pragmatism and argues that, while economic pragmatism comes in many flavors, each is either unstable or self-defeating. Section II advances the view that Anglo-American systems of intellectual property have both theoretical and pragmatic features. In Section III a sketch of a theory is offered--a theory that may limit applications of economic pragmatism and provide the foundation for copyright, patent, and trade secret institutions. To be justified--to warrant coercion on a worldwide scale--systems of intellectual property should be grounded in theory. Intellectual property rights are, in essence, no different than our rights to life, liberty, and tangible property. Intellectual property rights are neither pure social constructions nor bargains without foundations.

International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Special Refrence with Intangible Properties and Copyright Laws.

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rapid Pace

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCE IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS THE GROUND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Andrii Khridochkin ◽  
Petro Makushev
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Social Harm ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Subjective Side ◽  
Legal Consequences

The article deals with homogeneous group of administrative offences - administrative offences in the field of intellectual property as a basis of administrative liability. It is emphasized that the objective features of this administrative offence are its social harm, wrongfulness and punishment, and subjective ones are guilt and subjectivity. It is emphasized that only in the presence of all these features can one speak of qualifying an individual’s act as an administrative offence and resolving the issue of bringing him to administrative liability. The definition of the term “administrative offence in the field of intellectual property” is proposed as envisaged by the legislation on administrative liability of socially harmful, unlawful, guilty act, committed by the subjects of such unlawful acts that encroach on the set of property and personal non-property rights to the intellectual results. It is established that all warehouses of administrative offences in the field of intellectual property (art. 51-2, 107-1, 156-3 (in the part concerning intellectual property objects), 164-3, 164-6, 164-7, 164-8, 164-9, 164-13) there are such elements as objective signs and subjective features, which in their unity form the composition of administrative offences of this group. It is noted that the only generic object of these administrative offences is the group of public relations of intellectual property, which are protected by the law on administrative liability, and the subject of this group of public relations are objects of intellectual property. It is proved that the objective side of administrative offences in the field of intellectual property is a set of ways of infringement of intellectual property rights. Attention is drawn to the fact that in practice the violation of intellectual property rights to different objects has different economic, social and legal consequences, and therefore the degree of their social harm is different, and therefore there is a need to differentiate administrative liability depending on the intellectual property. Subjective signs of the administrative offences of this group, which are represented by their subject, are established, and the subjective side is characterized by the fact that they are committed only intentionally.

scholarly journals Authors, Inventors and Entrepreneurs: Intellectual Property and Actors of Extraction

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 319-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Fredriksson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Michel Foucault ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Roland Barthes ◽  
Cultural Economy ◽  
Cultural Expressions ◽  
Artistic Works ◽  
And Function

AbstractThe ideas and ideals of authorship and the discourse on property rights that emerged in parallel since the 18thcentury have come to form the bedrock of copyright law. Critical copyright scholars argue that this construction of authorship and ownership contributes to individualisation and privatisation of artistic works that disregards the collective aspects of creativity. It also embodies a certain kind of authorial character-or “author function” as Michel Foucault puts it-imbued with racial and gendered powers and privileges. While the gendered and racialised biases of intellectual property rights are well documented within copyright research, the commodification of ideas and cultural expressions relies on individualisation of creativity that is significant not only to the cultural economy but also to the 20th-century notion of the entrepreneur as the protagonist of capitalism. This article relates the idea of the entrepreneur to the deconstruction of authorship that was initiated by Foucault and Roland Barthes in the late 1960s, and the critique of an author-centred IPR regime developed by law scholars in the 1990s. It asks if and how the deconstruction of the author as a cultural and ideological persona that underpins the privatisation of immaterial resources can help us understand the construction and function of the entrepreneur in extractive capitalism.

When Property Does Not Mean Property: An Analysis of the Existence of International Intellectual Property†

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-345
Author(s):  
Jonathan M.W.W. Chu
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Logical Conclusion ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractThis paper endeavours to dispel the logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights and aims to show that the term “international intellectual property” may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort.To suggest that “there is no such thing as international intellectual property” may have been particularly reasonable prior to the end of the 19thcentury when there was little or no international obligations to protect intellectual property. Nowadays, however, the term “international intellectual property” is, at the very least, misunderstood, if not a clear term that has worked its way into the international legal lexicon with each international intellectual property agreement entered into since the beginning of the beginning of the international period.It is quite plain that individual intellectual property rights such as copyright, patents, registered designs, and registered and unregistered trade mark rights are not international in scope or nature. It is also quite clear that intellectual property rights are territorial in nature as they are derived from national law and are governed exclusively within jurisdictions of such law. This principle is trite and was better observed in a World Intellectual Property Organization survey:Each country determines, for its own territory and independently from any other country, what it is to be protected as intellectual property, who should benefit from such protection, for how long and how protection should be enforced.Despite an apparently logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights, the term “international intellectual property” may infer something more than this. Rather than confining the term to basic interpretation of the words which make the term, international intellectual property may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort. While the standards of recognition and rights granted in relation to such products of intellect may vary between nations, the source of such products remains the same and it is such property which various international agreements seek to govern. It is given through developments in international intellectual property agreements, that a definition of the term may be implied, if not derived.In this paper, I endeavour to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property. As such, I will first establish that there is such a thing as „intellectual property,” despite arguments against the term. I will then move on to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property, particularly in light of the developments in international intellectual property agreements.

COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS PROTECTION IN MODERN CONDITIONS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Urazova ◽  
◽  
Yulia Gudzenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of

The article presents a study of the problem of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, namely copyright and related rights. It is noted that the issue of protection and preservation of copyright and related rights in the modern world is very relevant and currently not fully resolved. The analysis of normative-legal documents in this sphere is carried out. In particular, the domestic legislation was studied, namely, the norms of the Civil and Criminal Codes of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights", the Law of Ukraine "On State Support of Cinematography in Ukraine". International normative legal acts are analyzed. Namely: the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (BOIB Agreement) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The definition of "protection" is given, as well as the objects and subjects of copyright and related rights. The article also pays attention to the types of copyright and related rights protection: jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional. Two modern ways of copyright protection have been studied - copyright and copyleft. Civil law protection is analyzed: the grounds for a person to go to court to protect their intellectual property rights, the procedure for protection of infringed rights and ways to protect these rights are determined. It has been established that filing a claim against the infringer of copyright and related rights is not always an effective way of protection. Thus, the subjects of copyright and related rights often choose to protect their infringed rights. Problems related to the regulation, protection and proof of copyright infringement on the Internet have been identified. An analysis of case law on the protection of copyright and related rights. It has been found that courts do not always adequately protect related rights that have been violated on the Internet. The conclusions and prospects of development of protection and protection of copyright and related rights are given.

Industrial Designs Protection in Qatar: An Analytical Study of Industrial Designs and Models Law No. 10 of 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Mohamed Salem Abou El-Farag ◽  
Shaikha Jaber S.H. Al-Muraikhi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Industrial Development ◽  
Analytical Study ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
National Economic ◽  
Vision 2030 ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract For the industrial development of national economic industries in any given country, designs for products and goods need to be created and developed. In 2020, Qatar issued a new law on Industrial Designs and Models (Law No. 10 of 2020) as a means of enhancing and strengthening Intellectual Property Rights and their protection, which is regarded as a part of Qatar’s National Vision 2030. In this article, the provisions of the new law will be critically examined. The discussion starts by highlighting the definition of, and the requirements for, protection. The rights granted to the owner of the design will also be explored. A comparison between the Qatari provisions and those from a number of other countries will be made throughout. The main purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the new law on industrial designs, taking into consideration the legal development of those jurisdictions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document