Integrating Oral Tradition into Academic Law Libraries: Best Practices and the Role of an Indigenous Scholarship Librarian

The investment activity is diverse and can be carried out with the use of intellectual property rights in accordance with the current international and Russian investment law. The article aims to identify the specifics of the application of intellectual property rights as investments and the implementation of intellectual investments, i.e. investments endowed into intellectual property rights. The objectives of the study are to consider the categories of an investment and object of investment activity, intellectual property, exclusive and other intellectual rights, as well as to analyze and determine the features of legal regulation of the activity in question at the international and national levels in the Russian Federation. Based on the results of the systematic analysis with the use of formal legal, comparative and other research methods, it is concluded that investments as a property in a broad sense may include both exclusive and other non-personal intellectual property rights to the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization of goods, works, services and enterprises. At the same time, they exclude intellectual property itself as a set of various types of intangible products, moral and other personal non-proprietary intellectual rights by virtue of their inalienable and non-transferable character. It is argued to be the same with respect to the object of investment activity, i.e. the property which the investment is endowed in and is capable to bring income to the investor in the future. Investments into such intellectual property rights can be called as intellectual investments.The legal regulation of investment activity with the use of intellectual property rights has a dual character (in the sense that it is carried out by different investment legislative acts with the similar subject of their regulation) and depends on the type of a particular object used. If intellectual property rights are invested in fixed capital, then they are to be recognized as capital investments and are governed by the Federal Law of February 25,1999 No. 39-FZ “On Investment Activity in the Russian Federation Carried out in the Form of Capital Investments”. If intellectual property rights are used as the object of investment activity, i.e. where investments are endowed in, such intellectual investments are subject to the regulation by the Law of the RSFSR of June 26, 1991 No. 1488-1 “On Investment Activity in the RSFSR”.

The Colour of Copyright

The rendezvous between intellectual property rights and human rights has awakened slumbering legal spirits. Miscellaneous legal phenomena are now nestled in the intersection between intellectual property rights and human rights. However, the interplay between human rights and intellectual property rights is bizarrely characterized by amity and hostility. Naturally, therefore, situating indigenous intellectual property at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights becomes a daunting task. However, the dilemma is often overstated especially from the point of view of conventional intellectual property rights. At the outset of this Article, I shall be exploring the history and the development of the relationship between human rights and intellectual property rights. In the followng section, I shall be examining the extent to which intellectual property rights are entrenched in the international human rights instruments. The last section shall be devoted to exploring the phenomenon of locating indigenous peoples' rights at the interface between intellectual property rights and human rights and reflecting on the ensuing issues—an aspect which has seldom been considered in the existing literature.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts «intellectual property» and «right of intellectual property» and to the issue of the possibility of using them as equivalent concepts. The author considersthe features of a broad understanding of the concept of intellectual property, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. With this approach intellectual relations are only one of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which is subject to legal regulation only in part.Taking into account the above, the difference between the meanings of the concepts «intellectual property» (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and «intellectual property right» is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determinedon the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside of the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept «object of intellectual property rights» is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights.The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in sociophilosophical sense that satisfies the social, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense the object by its nature is a good for man; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statusesand roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept «intellectual property» as identical with the concept «intellectual property right» is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concept of «intellectual property» and «intellectual property right» are used in the legislation in the same sense and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights about such objects.

The intersection of intellectual property and human rights is a relatively new site in the search for balance in intellectual property law and policy. Although this intersection opens up intellectual property to a unique kind of interdisciplinary analysis, only the human rights system appears to have seized the opportunity, while its intellectual property rights counterpart remains reluctant to engage. There are, so far, different competing first impressions over the nature of the intersection between intellectual property and human rights. Despite empirical credence of the conflict narrative, the co-existence of complementary thesis of the intellectual property and human rights interface has greater prospects for a meaningful and balanced rapprochement between the two. This chapter argues for critical scrutiny of the human rights appeal of intellectual property rights in order to avoid its potential for being hijacked by stronger stakeholders at the expense of their weaker opponents for whom intellectual property rights have strong paradoxical ramifications.

The world community recognizes that intellectual property and intellectual rights are one of the foundations of the modern business world. The issues of choosing ways to protect intellectual property rights are the subject of constant discussions. The authors analyze the problem in two aspects: from the point of view of state and international policy and from the point of view of the possibility of protecting their intellectual rights by participants in civil turnover. The purpose of the study is to study the mechanism of intellectual property rights protection, as well as to study the problems of compensation for moral damage and self-defense in the field of intellectual property. When preparing the article, general scientific logical methods were used, as well as a private formal legal method. The authors note that the conflict between the interests of the copyright holder of exclusive rights, on the one hand, and the general rights of participation and access, on the other, is a characteristic feature of modern society and culture, therefore intellectual property and intellectual rights are of interest not only as a legal institution, but also as a cultural model and socio-economic mechanism. With the development of digital technologies, the very principle of exclusivity of intellectual rights is increasingly being questioned both in theory and in practice, which naturally leads to a revision of existing ideas about the protection of these rights.

Making a COVID-19 vaccine globally available once developed: Decoupling production of the vaccine from its development

This chapter interrogates the complex and challenging relationship between intellectual property and human rights in the cultural heritage context. It begins by mapping the contours of the international human rights framework as it relates to intellectual property and cultural heritage. The chapter then offers three sets of illustrations covering situations in which tensions and conflicts between human rights and intellectual property rights may arise: (1) the production of user-generated content; (2) the reproduction of Indigenous cultural heritage; and (3) the digitization, sharing or dissemination of cultural materials by museums, libraries and archives. This chapter concludes by advancing a three-step balancing process to help resolve these potential tensions and conflicts.

This chapter interrogates the complex and challenging relationship between intellectual property and human rights in the cultural heritage context. It begins by mapping the contours of the international human rights framework as it relates to intellectual property and cultural heritage. The chapter then offers three sets of illustrations covering situations in which tensions and conflicts between human rights and intellectual property rights may arise: (1) the production of user-generated content; (2) the reproduction of Indigenous cultural heritage; and (3) the digitization, sharing or dissemination of cultural materials by museums, libraries and archives. This chapter concludes by advancing a three-step balancing process to help resolve these potential tensions and conflicts.

This paper provides a theoretical overview of and practical guidance on the use of intellectual property (IP) rights as security in Estonia. It begins with an overview of the different IP rights in Estonia and the categories of security rights that can be granted over them. Like in other European countries, there are both non-registered and registered IP rights in Estonia. The different types of IP rights can be categorized as either copyright and related rights or as industrial property rights. In addition to national IP rights, EU-wide IP rights such as EU trademarks and Community also have effect in Estonia. The main ways to create a security right over an IP right are by establishing a pledge over IP rights or by transferring the IP rights as security. An IP right may be encumbered with a pledge through the establishment of a registered security over movables (for registered IP rights) or a pledge of rights (for non-registered IP rights). In addition, non-registered IP rights can also form part of a general commercial pledge, which is established over the entire movable property of an enterprise.

Decentralizing the lawmaking function: Private lawmaking markets and intellectual property rights in law

In a series of articles and a book published shortly before his untimely death, Professor Larry Ribstein argued for decentralizing the lawmaking function, enabling private parties to make law, and harnessing the market as a force for legal innovation. As part of this project, Professor Ribstein, along with Professor Bruce Kobayashi, called for broader intellectual property (IP) rights in legal creations. Their argument relies on the conventional quasi-public goods rationale for IP rights. Innovators have suboptimal incentives to create new law in the absence of property rights because competitors can free ride on their creations. As a result, without IP rights, privately-made law would be created, as it is today, mostly as a byproduct of other activities such as litigation or political rent-seeking. And byproduct lawmaking is likely to produce suboptimal law. Broader IP rights solve the free rider problem and thus make possible a vigorous private lawmaking market. This Article, which was written for a conference celebrating Professor Ribstein’s scholarship, examines the case for granting broader IP rights in law as a way to incentivize legal innovation in a private lawmaking market. The discussion begins by briefly examining some of the benefits and costs of harnessing the private market to produce better law. With this background in place, it then turns to the case for IP rights in law. The Article first surveys the limited scope of protection under current IP law and then discusses the benefits and costs of expanding IP rights. It closes by focusing on some special problems with granting property rights in aspects of common law adjudication, such as litigation documents and judicial decisions. In the end, the goal is to inject a note of caution. Private lawmaking is more attractive for some types of legal innovation and less attractive for others, and it is not clear that broader IP rights are necessary or desirable to spur legal innovation in a private market. It might be best to proceed incrementally, by first removing the professional barriers to competition and then expanding IP rights only if experience with the new market supports the need for additional protection.

While information technologies present organizations with opportunities to become more competitive, unsettled social norms and lagging legislation guiding the use of these technologies present organizations and individuals with ethical dilemmas. This paper presents two studies investigating the relationship between intellectual property and privacy attitudes, Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology, and working in R&D and computer literacy in the form of programming experience. In Study 1, Machiavellians believed it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Programmers and R&D workers considered violating intellectual property rights more acceptable. Programmers did not consider violating privacy rights more acceptable, but R&D workers did. Finally, there was an interaction between Machiavellianism, programming and R&D. Machiavellians who also had programming experience or worked in R&D found violations of intellectual property much more acceptable. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by programming experience. In Study 2, idealists believed it was less acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Relativists found it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, though they did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Those with programming experience were more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, programming experience moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward these unethical information practices. Implications for diminishing unethical behavior among Machiavellians, Relativists, programmers and those in R&D are discussed.

Intellectual Property and Biological Knowledge

Chat reference has been a popular form of synchronous virtual reference used by academic libraries. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many academic law libraries have also adopted this tool to provide reference services remotely. This article examines the current usage of chat reference among academic law libraries through a survey of law library websites of all ABA-Accredited law schools. The author discusses the advantages of using chat reference, the staffing issue, and possible solutions to that. The author suggests the usage of chatbot to extend reference hours and create a more interactive and welcoming atmosphere to library website users.