Optimizing use of orphan works while respecting intellectual property rights: a Law and Economics perspective

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joëlle Farchy ◽  
Jessica Petrou
2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli M. Salzberger

This paper focuses on the normative analysis of intellectual property rights, in light of the technological revolution of the Internet and accompanying technologies. After a brief overview of the various philosophical justifications for awarding intellectual property rights, it identifies two major Law and Economics paradigms for the analysis of intellectual property: the incentives paradigm, which is founded upon the public goods analysis of neo-classical microeconomic theory, and the tragedy of the commons literature, which is based on the economic analysis of externalities. The paper raises several points of critique towards both frameworks of analysis and especially towards their inability to point to the desirable extent of intellectual property rights (IPR) and the direction of their reform required as the result of the recent technological revolution. It further criticizes the dominant contemporary Law and Economics writings in this field as shifting to a new proprietary paradigm that pre-assumes information to be an object of property, overlooking its fundamental differences from physical property and focusing on its management rather than on its initial justifications. The paper is concluded with some tentative thoughts on the general notion of “Property Rights” in light of the contemporary approach concerning intellectual property.


Author(s):  
Ihor Shulpin

Keywords: real losses, intellectual property rights, object of intellectual propertyrights, subject of intellectual property rights, right to own, use and dispose of intellectualproperty rights, contractual obligations, non-contractual legal relations This article provides an analysis and formulation of the category of «real losses» in thefield of intellectual property. The categories of «real losses» in relation to the propertysphere and the sphere of intellectual property are analysed and justified.First, the author will consider the concept of «real losses» in the property sphere,which was previously studied by many well-known legal scholars and lawyers. Further,we are talking about the structure and Element-by-Element composition of reallosses. Then, the concept of incurred and future expenses is considered.The author notes that everything that concerns the property sphere will also applyto the sphere of intellectual property to a certain extent, but a significant differencewill be that real losses in these areas apply to different subjects, objects and rights. After that, the author will try to provide and analyse the definition of the concept of«real losses» for regarding the sphere of intellectual property.Further, the author focuses on the concept of intellectual property law, the subjectof intellectual property rights, intellectual property rights, objects of intellectualproperty rights under the Civil Code of Ukraine. Also, the article deals with such conceptsas the rights of the owner of rights: the right to own, the right to use and theright to dispose. Further, we are talking about real expenses in the field of intellectualproperty.Summing up the theoretical material presented above and taking into account thechanges of the author that he proposed, the definition of the concept of "real losses" inthe field of intellectual property is given.According to the author, such a legal norm could be included in the fourth book«Intellectual Property Law», Chapter 35 «general provisions on intellectual propertylaw» of the Civil Code of Ukraine, in the article on losses.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes

Batik artwork is one of the treasures of the nation's cultural heritage. Batik artwork is currently experiencing rapid growth. The amount of interest and market demand for this art resulted batik artwork became one of the commodities in the country and abroad. Thus, if the batik artwork is not protected then the future can be assured of a new conflict arises in the realm of intellectual property law. Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright has accommodated artwork batik as one of the creations that are protected by law. So that this work of art than as a cultural heritage also have economic value for its creator. Then how the legal protection of the batik artwork yaang not registered? Does this also can be protected? While in the registration of intellectual property rights is a necessity so that it has the force of law to the work produced


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document