Beyond Unbridled Optimism and Fear: Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and the Globalisation of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore: Part I

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Cultural Expression ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract This article is the first part of a two-part piece, which considers the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. After establishing pragmatic working definitions of who “indigenous peoples” are and what folklore (or “traditional cultural expression”) is, as compared with, but dialectically related to, “traditional knowledge,” this article does the following: 1) explains why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool for protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (TCE) of indigenous peoples; and 2) creates a general sketch of human rights related legal instruments that could be and have been harnessed, with varying degrees of success, in the protection of the intellectual property of indigenous peoples.

scholarly journals Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Emerging Issue of Intellectual Property Law

2017 ◽  
pp. 63-71
Author(s):  
Madhu Soodan Poudyal
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Indigenous Knowledge ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Present Context ◽  
The Impact

Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge are the two concepts under intellectual property which in the present context is of major concern of intellectual property law. Since, the term traditional knowledge and indigenous knowledge are quite often used interchangeably but failing to understand at times that they do not carry the same meaning it may lead to confusion. Sothis paper in general clarifies the distinction between these two concepts of intellectual property highlighting the importance of traditional knowledge. The paper attempts to discuss the areas of scope and significance of traditional knowledge. Furthermore, this paper highlights the impact of failure of registering the traditional knowledge as a patent leading to infringement of violation of intellectual property rights. The paper in conclusion opines that the ongoing debate of need of national and international actions for the protection of traditional knowledge and preservation of the nation's intellectual property should be the interest of all nations.

Beyond Unbridled Optimism and Fear: Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and the Globalisation of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore: Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract In Part I of this two-part article, we explained why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool, as a way of protecting traditional knowledge (tk) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (tce) of indigenous peoples. Part II of this article aims to: 1) provide a brief review of the Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) and the Nagoya Protocol, and examine the evolution of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples from the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (trips Agreement) to the cbd to the Nagoya Protocol; and 2) examine possible core principles, inducted (rather than deduced) from actual practices already in place in the areas of patents, copyrights, and trademarks in relation to protecting tk and EoF. These explorations could allow for discussions regarding indigenous peoples, human rights and international trade law to become less adversarial.

scholarly journals Intellectual property law in the field of sports: specifics of manifestations and features of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (69) ◽  
pp. 530-546
Author(s):  
Evgen Kharytonov ◽  
Olena Kharytonova ◽  
Maxym Tkalych ◽  
Inna Bolokan ◽  
Hanna Samilo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Sports Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Wide Range

The article aims to explore the relationships that arise with respect to intellectual property rights in sports. The objectives of the article are to establish points of contact between intellectual property law and sports, as well as a detailed analysis of relevant public relations in terms of intellectual property law and sports law. To achieve the objectives of the article, the authors used a number of scientific methods, among which the main methods are analysis, synthesis and comparative-legal method. The authors of the study concluded that modern sport is developing in close intertwining with intellectual property rights, because only in this way can a sports spectacle be conveyed to a wide range of spectators and consumers in a broad sense. In addition, the range of points of contact between intellectual property and sports law is constantly growing and such can now be called not only patents and trademarks in sports, but also copyright, "image" rights, know-how in sports and the like.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Swapnil Tripathi ◽  
Chandni Ghatak
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Human Intervention ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Artificial Intelligence Systems

Artificial intelligence systems have been gaining widespread momentum in today’s progressing tech-savvy world. With sophisticated technologies being incorporated in the same, it is only a matter of time these systems start to produce marvelous inventions without human intervention of any kind. This brings forth pertinent questions concerning Intellectual Property Rights, (IPR) for, it challenges not only traditional notions of concepts such as patents and copyrights, but also leads to the emergence of questions related to the regulation of such creations amidst others. This paper seeks to provide insight into the expanding scope of IPR laws and artificial intelligence, along with the inevitable challenges it brings from a worldwide lens on the matter. It also attempts to provide suggestions transcending IPR, and seeks to address questions concerning criminal liability for the content created by such technologies.

scholarly journals Criminal Enforcement and International Intellectual Property Law

2014 ◽  
pp. 134-153
Author(s):  
Siddharth Partap Singh
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Global Consensus ◽  
Standard Set

There is a global consensus that domain of Intellectual Property should be subjected to criminal enforcement in order to secure the rights of owners of such Intellectual Property Rights. The TRIPS Agreement was, to some extent, successful in crystallizing the consensus as regards the criminal measures to be taken by States in the event of the infringement of Intellectual Property Rights through article 61. However, the standard set by the provision by minimal, to say the least. The advent of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement has broader obligations, while also addressing some unsettled issues that have surfaced in disputes such as the China-IPRs case.

1. Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Uk

This introduction provides an overview of topics covered in this book which relate to all areas of intellectual property law, including the justifications that have been put forward for granting intellectual property rights. It also considers the key international and regional developments that have influenced intellectual property law in the UK, such as the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) negotiations, and European Union law. The chapter also discusses the ways in which the European Union is involved in intellectual property law, such as its involvement in negotiating and signing treaties. Finally, it looks at the European Economic Area and non-EU regional initiatives on intellectual property, as well as the implications of Brexit.

scholarly journals Intellectual Property Rights Systems and the Assemblage of Local Knowledge Systems

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saskia Vermeylen ◽  
George Martin ◽  
Roland Clift
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Local Knowledge ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Third Space ◽  
Unresolved Conflict ◽  
Indigenous Society

The mounting loss of the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples presents environmental as well as ethical issues. Fundamental among these is the sustainability of indigenous societies and their ecosystems. Although the commercial expropriation of traditional knowledge grows, rooted in a global, corporate application of intellectual property rights (IPRs), the survival of indigenous societies becomes more problematic. One reason for this is an unresolved conflict between two perspectives. In the modernist view, traditional knowledge is a tool to use (or discard) for the development of indigenous society, and therefore it must be subordinated to Western science. Alternatively, in the postmodernist view, it is harmonious with nature, providing a new paradigm for human ecology, and must be preserved intact. We argue that this encumbering polarization can be allayed by shifting from a dualism of traditional and scientific knowledge to an assemblage of local knowledge, which is constituted by the interaction of both in a third space. We argue that IPR can be reconfigured to become the framework for creating such a third space.

scholarly journals The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Basic Work ◽  
Freedom Of Action

A number of doctrines in modern copyright and patent law attempt to strikesome balance between the rights of original developers and the rights ofsubsequent improvers. Both patents and copyrights are limited in durationand in scope. Each of these limitations provides some freedom of action tosubsequent improvers. Improvers are free to use material that is in thepublic domain because the copyright or patent has expired. They are free toskirt the edges of existing intellectual property rights, for example bytaking the ideas but not the expression from a copyrighted work or"designing around" the claims of a patent. However, improvers cannot alwaysavoid the intellectual property rights of the basic work on which they wishto improve. Some improvements fall within the scope of the preexistingintellectual property right, either because of an expansive definition ofthat right or because economic or technical necessity requires that theimprover hew closely to the work of the original creator in some basicrespect. Here, the improver is at the mercy of the original intellectualproperty owner, unless there is some separate right that expressly allowscopying for the sake of improvement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document