scholarly journals Bioprinting and culture of tissues and organs in the BRICS countries (on the example of Brazil, India, China, and South Africa): approaches of legislation on intellectual property

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksenia Michailovna Belikova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Medical Technologies ◽  
Brics Countries ◽  
The Right

This article examines the legal regulation of bioprinting (3D printing) and culture of tissues and organs in the BRICS countries through the prism of protection of intellectual property. The work demonstrates the means of protection of results acquired at each stage of bioprinting by the norms of copyright and patent law, as well as touches on the questions of the need (possibility) for patenting of “bioprinters”, “bioinks”, “biopapers”, etc. The goal of this research is to determine the necessary and possible boundaries for patenting (copyright law protection) of the means, products, processes and their moral-ethical acceptance in the society. The novelty of this work consists in a comprehensive analysis of the approaches of BRICS countries towards development, legal formalization and protection of bioprinting and culture of tissues and organs as medical and non-medical technologies from the perspective of intellectual property law. The author attempts to answer the question of (non)patentability of the process (means) and result (product) of bioprinting of tissues and organs, the “bioprinters” themselves, as well as the “bioinks” and “biopapers” they use. With regards to (non)patentability of tissues and organs acquired through 3D printing, a conclusion is made that there is an unfavorable environment for their patenting, though their production, in the author’s opinion, should the right to patenting providing that they meet the criteria (other conditions) set by patenting law of a particular country.

scholarly journals Droit de Suite – The Artists’ Resale Right

2012 ◽  
pp. 71-75
Author(s):  
Anthony O’Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
English Translation ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Future Success ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
First Sale ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Droit De Suite

This article looks at the droit de suite, which is a legally recognised right that forms part of copyright law and more widely, intellectual property law. The article reviews the present restrictive application of the law, analyses the definition of the “artist” and discusses the merit of a wider interpretation and application of the droit de suite. The English translation of droit de suite literally means the ‘right to follow’ and, in the context of the artists’ resale right, it allows artists to follow the future success of their artistic works. This future success involves an economic entitlement that the artist may participate in. In practical terms this means that, after the first sale of the artistic work, every subsequent public sale, for instance through a dealer or a gallery, is subject to a sort of royalty. Royalties in the traditional sense entitle various types of artistic creators, such as ...

scholarly journals The Maker Movement: Copyright Law, Remix Culture and 3D Printing

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rimmer
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Creative Industries ◽  
Maker Movement ◽  
Marcel Duchamp ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Maker Movement

Rimmer, Matthew (2017) The Maker Movement: Copyright law, remix culture, and 3D printing. University of Western Australia Law Review, 41(2), pp. 51-84.There has been much interest in how intellectual property law, policy, and practice will adapt to the emergence of 3D printing and the maker movement. Intellectual property lawyers will have to grapple with the impact of additive manufacturing upon a variety of forms of intellectual property – including copyright law, trade mark law, designs law, patent law, and trade secrets. The disruptive technology of 3D printing will both pose opportunities and challenges for legal practitioners and policy-makers.Rather than try to survey this expanding field, this article considers a number of early conflicts and skirmishes in respect of copyright law and 3D printing. There has been significant interest in the impact of 3D printing on copyright law and the creative industries. There have been classic issues raised about copyright subsistence, and the overlap between copyright law and designs. There has also been a moral panic about 3D printing facilitating copyright infringement – like peer to peer networks such as Napster in the past. There has been a use of open licensing models such as Creative Commons licensing to facilitate the sharing of 3D printing files. Such battles highlight a conflict between the open culture of the Maker Movement, and the closed culture of copyright industries. In many ways, such conflicts touch upon classic issues involved in ‘information environmentalism’. Part II looks at the controversy over Left Shark. In particular, it examines the copyright claims of Katy Perry in respect of the Left Shark figure. Part III considers questions about scanning. Augustana College tried to assert copyright against a maker, Jerry Fisher, who was scanning statues of Michelangelo (although copyright had long since expired in such work). Part IV focuses upon copyright law, 3D printing and readymades. The Estate of Marcel Duchamp lodged a copyright protest over a 3D printed set of chess, based on the work of Marcel Duchamp. Part V examines the intervention of a number of 3D printing companies in a Supreme Court of the United States dispute in Star Athletic v. Varsity Brands. Part VI considers copyright law and intermediary liability. Part VII examines the operation of technological protection measures in the context of copyright law and 3D Printing

Intellectual Property Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lionel Bently ◽  
Brad Sherman ◽  
Dev Gangjee ◽  
Phillip Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Trade Mark Law

Intellectual Property Law provides a detailed analysis of intellectual property law with reference to a wide range of academic opinion, giving a broad context for exploring the key principles of the subject. In this fifth edition, the introduction has been updated to take account of Brexit. Important developments covered include the introduction of a doctrine of equivalents into UK patent law, the reforms of EU trade mark law (particularly with respect to ‘representation’ of marks, and the ‘functionality exclusions’), and the development of the concept of ‘communication to the public’ by the CJEU. The book covers a number of areas of intellectual property law including copyright, patents, the legal regulation of designs, trade marks and passing off, confidential information, and litigation and remedies. The volume includes a new chapter on the tort of misuse of private information.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: The Issues of the Legal Regulation of Patent Relations

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 48-54
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Kupchina
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection

Introduction: in the paper, the author analyzed the current problems associated with the use of artificial intelligence in the field of intellectual property. Thanks to the active introduction of this technology in many areas of human activity, there is a rapid growth of innovative processes. On the one hand, such active improvement of the computer technology system creates a favorable environment for the development of economic, political and social relations. On the other hand, however, the potential for the further development of artificial intelligence is of serious concern in the scientific community. In particular, modern digital technologies are developing much faster than the legal framework designed to regulate them is improving. In this regard, the first branch of law that has faced the greatest difficulties is intellectual property law, since it is a branch of law directly related to innovation processes. The purpose of the research is achieved by solving a number of tasks: to determine the role of artificial intelligence as a “subject” of patent relations, as well as the boundaries of responsibility for patent infringement by AI. The methodology is based on a theoretical approach to the study of the legal framework in the field of intellectual property. Based on the analysis of the theoretical data obtained, the author provides the examples of patent violations related to the use of artificial intelligence technology, as well as highlights some modern approaches to solving this problem. The results of the research can be used to determine the key goals and objectives in the law enforcement, research, as well as in educational and teaching activities, in particular, during lectures and seminars on courses in intellectual property law, copyright and patent law. Conclusions: the development of artificial intelligence technologies is central to the development of better intellectual property management systems. The development of new doctrines for new technologies, the modification of the existing patent system, as well as the changes in the policy of intellectual property rights protection contribute to the effective development of innovative processes and the improvement of the legal system as a whole.

scholarly journals The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Infringement

Every IP right has its own definition of infringement. In this paper, wesuggest that this diversity of legal rules is largely traceable todifferences in the audience in IP cases. Patent, trademark, copyright, anddesign patent each focus on a different person as the fulcrum forevaluating IP infringement. The fact that patent law focuses on an expertaudience while trademark looks to a consumer audience explains many of thedifferences in how patent and trademark cases are decided. Expert audiencesare likely to evaluate infringement based on the technical similaritybetween the plaintiff’s and defendant’s works. Consumers, by contrast, arelikely to pay more attention to market substitution and less attention tohow things work under the hood. Understanding the different audiences in IPinfringement is critical to understanding how the IP regimes defineinfringement.The focus on audience has normative as well as descriptive implications.Neither patent law, with its focus on experts and technical similarity, nortrademark law, with its market-based consumer focus, has it entirelycorrect. Rather, we suggest that as a general matter infringement of an IPright should require both technical similarity and market substitution.Assessing infringement through the expert’s eyes ensures that the lawprevents closely related works in the field while allowing latercontributions to the field that are sufficiently different. The consumervantage point ensures that we protect IP owners only when they have beenharmed in the marketplace.IP owners who want to show infringement should have to show both that thedefendant’s work is technically similar to their own from the expert’svantage point and that the defendant’s use causes the plaintiff marketharm. Copyright law, which does look both to experts and to consumers atvarious points in infringement analysis, is on the right track.

Fixing Improvisation

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthea Kraut
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
African American ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Tap Dance ◽  
American Vernacular ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter juxtaposes brief case studies of African American vernacular dancers from the first half of the twentieth century in order to reexamine the relationship between the ideology of intellectual property law and the traditions of jazz and tap dance, which rely heavily on improvisation. The examples of the blackface performer Johnny Hudgins, who claimed a copyright in his pantomime routine in the 1920s, and of Fred and Sledge, the class-act dance duo featured in the hit 1948 musical Kiss Me, Kate, whose choreography was copyrighted by the white modern dancer Hanya Holm, prompt a rethinking of the assumed opposition between the originality and fixity requirements of copyright law and the improvisatory ethos of jazz and tap dance. Ultimately, the chapter argues that whether claiming or disavowing uniqueness, embracing or resisting documentation, African American vernacular dancers were both advantaged and hampered by copyright law.

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL LAW ASPECTS OF GERMAN COPYRIGHT LAW (GCL)

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 93-98
Author(s):  
Юрий Юмашев ◽  
Yuriy Yumashev ◽  
Елена Постникова ◽  
Elena Postnikova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article deals with international law aspects of the GCL. To this aim firstly the international conventions on copyright law are analyzed, in particular: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the wording of the Paris Act of 1971, the Convention on the Establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 and Aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994. There is also an analysis of the EU copyright law in terms of its correlation with the law of the EU member-states and an assessment of its evolution. It is emphasized that the core fact of origin of authorship is determined on the basis of the national legislation of the Member-States. Special attention is paid to the scope of the “principle of exhausted rights”. The article also touches upon the aspect of private international law. Particular attention is paid to the legal regulation of the Internet, including Internet providers, and its impact on the formation of the GCL. The problem of combating Internet piracy is also raised, as copyright infringement often occurs in relation to works published online. In addition, the article revealed what changes were made to the GCL to comply with EU law (including secondary law acts and the practice of the EU Court). The result of the study is, among other things, the conclusion that special legal mechanisms should be developed to regulate new forms of selling works that have emerged as a result of technological progress and in the near future the Internet will undoubtedly form ways for the further development of the GCL. However, this process can negatively affect the leading role of the author as a creative person.

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 BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DISPUTES

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (40) ◽  
Author(s):  
Njegoslav Jović
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Property Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Primary Activity ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right

In this paper, the author analyzes the benefits and limitationsof international arbitration in disputes that are subject to intellectual propertyrights. Intellectual property law disputes have special characteristics. In theevent of a dispute with an international element, there is a problem with thejurisdiction of state courts due to the principle of the territoriality of intellectualproperty rights. The titular of the right must initiate court proceedings in allcountries individually, leading to delays in procedures, multiplication of costsand uneven judicial practice. For these reasons, the author analyzes alternativedispute resolution through arbitration to determine whether this method ofdispute resolution is more acceptable to foreign courts.The author particularly pays attention to the WIPO Center for Arbitrationand Mediation as a permanent arbitration institution whose primary activity isthe resolution of disputes in the field of intellectual property rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document