Attribution Of Rights Research Articles

Research on the transmission of the Open University of Japan courses via multi-device apps oriented to the learning ecosystem

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose the need for an integrated system for the production, authoring, addition and revision of webcast content and a multi-device apps mechanism with rights management for Internet transmission in the perspective of the OUJ course reuse.Design/methodology/approachThis paper designs systems that reuse the existing OUJ courses from the viewpoint of effective utilization, combine broadcasting lectures and online lectures of the OUJ courses and seamlessly link them as media-mix contents. In contrast to content development methodologies that assume embedded content production, this paper’s methodology takes an approach to producing and authoring webcasting content, flexibly adding and revising the content and transmitting that content over the internet via multi-device apps, taking rights management into account.FindingsThere is concern about the ELSI arising from the use of generative AI. It is directed at web content. This paper can contribute to resolving the ELSI surrounding the use of generative AI because it discusses a method of learning content development that clarifies the attribution of rights to content.Originality/valueThe originality of this paper lies in the fact that it is oriented to reuse existing lectures of the OUJ courses and simplify the rights clearance for them, from the perspective of the learning ecosystem. The value of this paper is that it can also serve as a technical and legal response to the production, authoring and Internet transmission of open university courses in the era of generative AI.

Challenges and Countermeasures to Data Sharing in the Context of Intellectual Property Rights

In the context of the digital economy era, data sharing has brought great value to the economic operation of the whole society. Due to factors such as diversification of subjects and types, infringement problems in data sharing and data circulation occur from time to time, and these problems need to be solved urgently. Through the literature analysis method and comparative analysis method, the current problems in data sharing are sorted out. China has carried out many explorations for solving the intellectual property rights problems in data sharing, but there are still problems such as insufficient existing legislation, data sharing and protection are not yet balanced, the attribution of rights is not yet clear, and it is easy to be leaked illegally. In view of the current problems faced by China's data sharing in the field of intellectual property rights, corresponding suggestions and measures are put forward, and the future research direction is envisioned.

The Problem of Attribution of Rights and Obligations Arising in the Process of Trust Management

The Problem of Attribution of Rights and Obligations Arising in the Process of Trust Management

I, Robot have rights! Haven’t I? Conceptual and normative constraints on holding legal positions

This paper investigates whether AI robots can hold legal rights, exploring both conceptual and justificatory aspects of the issue. It distinguishes between two types of inquiries: conceptual (whether robots can have rights) and normative (whether they should). It argues that interest theories are more suitable for addressing the latter, while will theories may seem more suitable to the former but are limited in reaching necessary truths about rights. Grounded in the idea that legal positions are constituted by legal norms, the paper examines the relationship between will as intentional action, investigating its implications for determining who can hold legal positions, and concludes that intentional action is necessary for legal positions involving action (e.g., duties, powers and liberties), while claim-rights or immunities can be conferred upon entities lacking this capacity. At the normative level, it explores reasons justifying the ascription of rights, focusing on the concept of interest. A suggested approach for the normative analysis required involves comparing robots’ interests with those of humans to justify their attribution of rights.

저작물의 새로운 이용 방법과 저작권의 귀속

In the field of copyright, the development of new technologies leads to new ways of using copyrighted works, and the question arises as to whom the profits from such uses should be attributed. NFTs, a new way of using copyrighted works that has emerged due to the development of blockchain technology, also raise the issue of to whom the profits should be attributed. In most cases, this issue arises between the original author and the subsequent rights holder, and can be resolved in two ways: the technical characteristics of the method of use and the direction of law and policy. First of all, when it comes to the technical aspects of attributing benefits, there are two points to consider. One is to look at whose rights are more necessary in the life-cycle of an NFT, such as the creation of an NFT. Unless separate rights are created for NFTs, it will be easier to obtain rights to NFTs for those who have more of the necessary rights or similar types of rights in relation to NFTs. The other is to look at whose interests the NFT technology itself, as a new way of using it, serves more and whose interests it harms less. If NFTs are a completely unexpected technology, it seems reasonable to recognize the original creator of the work to retain the rights, and if it can cannibalize or displace the business of the latter, it seems reasonable to grant rights to the latter. Next, from a legal and policy perspective, the attribution of a new method of use may be determined by the status and position of the parties, the process at the contractual stage, the economic impact, and social justice such as the proper distribution of benefits. However, in order to prevent disputes and increase predictability, it is necessary to establish the principle of attribution of rights to new methods of use and introduce a simple method of resolving the issue according to the purpose. The U.S. and European systems can be used as a guide, and if the principle of freedom of contract is maintained and original authors, who are generally at a disadvantage, are to be protected, the introduction of a right of termination, a right of rescission or a right of revocation that enables the assignment of new methods of use in advance and protects original authors seems appropriate.

Do generative artificial intelligence systems dream of electric sheep? The concept and conditions of protection of objects generated by generative artificial intelligence systems in Ukraine’

The publication provides an overview of the noveltiesof the Ukrainian legislation «On Copyright and Related Rights» (2023) regarding the peculiarities of protection of non-original objects generated by a computer program (generative artificial intelligence system) using sui generis law, in particular through the prism of exceptions and limitations in copyright.Ukraine has introduced one of the world's first models of the legal protection of AI output through a special sui generis legal regime. The author determines that the legislator sets forth three conditions for a non-original object generated by a computer program (generative artificial intelligence system) to be protected by law: The AI output must differ from existing similar objects; the AI output must be generated as a result of the operation of a computerprogram without the direct participation of an individual in the generation of this object; and the rights of third parties must be respected when generating a non-original object.It is established that the existing exceptions and restrictions in Ukrainian copyright (free making of copies of works to search for text and data included in or related to scientific publications for research purposes and temporary reproduction) will allow limited operation of generative artificial intelligence systems. However, it is necessary to consider that AI outputs do not unreasonably restrict the legitimate interests of the relevant copyright owners.In practice, the functioning of generative artificial intelligence systems demonstrates one of the general principles of civil law - freedom of contract through self-regulation of the distribution of intellectual property rights to AI outputs. The assumption is made that it is not necessary to establish the «default» attribution of rights to such objects at the legislative level.The author suggests that in the future, depending on the requirements of sustainable economic development and the balance of interests between society and the relevant subjects of law, the terms of the legal protection of rights to AI outputs may be changed.The author provides recommendations for improving this area's legal regulation and enhancing law enforcement's efficiency.

A Theory of Rights Based on Autonomy

AbstractThis article takes a critical look at the classic couplet of theories on the justification of rights, namely, the choice theory and the interest or benefit theory, where the two are understood to be in conflict. The argument is made that this couplet is best replaced with a new one, namely, a sophisticated rendering of the benefit theory coupled with the autonomy theory, such that any conflict is resolved. The latter two theories take different cases in justifying the attribution of rights: The autonomy theory is concerned with justifying the attribution of rights to adult, rational, and competent subjects, arguing that this attribution requires a sufficiently autonomous claim by such subjects, while the benefit theory seeks to justify the attribution of rights to subjects who lack any of these three properties, meaning that they cannot be considered adult, rational, or competent.

Study on the Attribution of Rights in Generative Artificial Intelligence Works

In modern life with ever-changing science and technology, artificial intelligence has become more and more popular, existing in all aspects of people's lives, playing an important and difficult to replace role. However, the lag of the law leads to the fact that it can not solve all disputes, especially in the copyright ownership of artificial intelligence works, whether it is infringement, contract disputes or copyright protection. It is an urgent problem to be solved. Because most of the disputes in the present stage of artificial intelligence are in the aspect of economic property, this paper discusses the ownership of the rights of works from the perspective of law and economics and economic principles. Based on the incentive principle in economics, the feasible path in academic research and the subject of legal responsibility, this paper should ascribe its rights to investors. However, in order to avoid conflicts between the right to use and the right to publish, the node where the user "pays fees" should be regarded as the investor's transfer of the ownership of the work in a "silent" way. If the investment company refuses, it shall do so in an express manner.

Constraints and Challenges to the Legal Relationship: From the Legal Entity to the Animal and the Robot

The purpose of this article is to reflect on the constraints placed on the legal relationship, due to the autonomy of the legal person, as well as the possible attribution of rights to animals and robots. Such modifications, by implying the correlative quality of legal subjects, raise new challenges to the legal relationship, bearing in mind, above all, the recent emergence to the re-personalization of civil law.

Analysis of the Legal Subject Status of Artificial Intelligence

The large-scale application of artificial intelligence in social life has brought about new legal issues such as the attribution of rights and the definition of responsibilities. It is necessary to discuss whether artificial intelligence can be used as a legal subject. In view of the existing disputes on this issue, we need to re-examine it from the perspective of second-order observation. Human beings are the origin of the mechanism of the subject, possessing rationality and free will, and providing the source of value for the subject of law. Human beings are the original subject of law. In the process of substantiation, the legal subject is separated from the personality characteristics, and the legal person as the derivative legal subject appears. Artificial intelligence does not have the condition to become an original legal subject, but if it can meet the long-term fundamental interests of human beings as a legal subject, there is still the possibility of being formulated as a derivative legal subject.

Law and policies related to works generated by artificial intelligence in Brazil and the European Union

Investments in sophisticated technologies have enabled the creation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems capable of reproducing the behaviour of the human brain, with the ability to learn, decide and even create intellectual works. This technological reality drew the attention of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU), which began to pressure the development of research on AI and Intellectual Property (IP), to identify the best legal solutions to the factual situation of works generated by non-human agents. Responding to this call of the Parliament, this monograph proposes to investigate the feasibility of protection of intellectual works generated by AI systems in Brazil and the EU, based on current legislation, jurisprudence, and doctrine. To this end, the monograph is based on the hypothetical-deductive method, starting from a comparative approach, and divided into three main parts. The first part is destined to present the fundamental notions of AI and copyright. After this introduction, the second part assesses whether works generated by AI systems qualify as intellectual property subject to copyright protection, based on the case study of the painting The Next Rembrandt, identifying the issues related to the attribution of rights to human and non-human agents involved in the creation process. Finally, the third part is destined to examine the legislative proposals and governmental solutions suggested in Brazil and in the EU on the matter. Based on the acknowledgement of the insufficiency of traditional provisions to protect works generated by AI systems, it is concluded that the European Intellectual Property Office's proposal for the elaboration of a sui generis system seems to be the most adequate solution to protect works generated by AI in Brazil and in the EU.

Review of Nergis Canefe, The Syrian Exodus in Context: Crisis, Dispossession and Mobility in the Middle East

Nergis Canefe’s The Syrian Exodus in Context: Crisis, Dispossession and Mobility in the Middle East presents itself as focusing on the experiences of dispossession among migrants highlighting their state of precarity reinforced by practices of selective attribution of rights...

Recht voor zijn (r)aap

The idea of animal rights is sympathetic with regards to animal suffering. Including these rights in the constitution has enormous symbolic value: it underlines the important moral position of other creatures. Nevertheless, in this contribution it is stated that the attribution of rights to other than human animals in a legal system that is developed for and run by human animals, is in a sense speciesistic: other than human animals cannot fence for themselves within our legal arena. The law as we know it, is an important tool in addressing human behaviour towards other species.

Representation and power – Discursive constructions of stakeholder positions in regional place marketing collaboration

The aim of this paper is to study the power dynamics that unfold as part of communicative processes in place marketing collaboration, as exemplified in the EU’s developed but peripheral regional settings. The paper applies positioning theory to analyse how power dynamics are constructed through the distribution of rights and duties between participating stakeholders in two regional-level place marketing projects carried out in Eastern Finland between 2011 and 2014. The analysis of 24 interviews reveals story lines that unfold as part of a collaborative process between steering group representatives. Focus is given to the attribution of rights and duties to the stakeholders within these story lines, and the power dynamics that manifest as a result. Two central story lines are identified. In the formal story line positioning is related to the distribution of funding, regional scope of the projects, and the formal roles of stakeholders. In the spatial story line positioning concerned the dominance of regional centres and the spatial proximity between stakeholders. While the paper underlines the potential of positioning theory for understanding power dynamics in place marketing contexts, the findings are limited to specific geographical and institutional contexts. However, the paper presents a novel approach to the analysis of power dynamics in place marketing and branding by bringing attention to the normative aspects of power in communicative processes. This helps to identify and address the tension caused by power dynamics in place marketing and branding collaborations, which has been identified as a central challenge in recent literature.

Sympathy for Dolores: Moral Consideration for Robots Based on Virtue and Recognition

This paper motivates the idea that social robots should be credited as moral patients, building on an argumentative approach that combines virtue ethics and social recognition theory. Our proposal answers the call for a nuanced ethical evaluation of human-robot interaction that does justice to both the robustness of the social responses solicited in humans by robots and the fact that robots are designed to be used as instruments. On the one hand, we acknowledge that the instrumental nature of robots and their unsophisticated social capabilities prevent any attribution of rights to robots, which are devoid of intrinsic moral dignity and personal status. On the other hand, we argue that another form of moral consideration—not based on rights attribution—can and must be granted to robots. The reason is that relationships with robots offer to the human agents important opportunities to cultivate both vices and virtues, like social interaction with other human beings. Our argument appeals to social recognition to explain why social robots, unlike other technological artifacts, are capable of establishing with their human users quasi-social relationships as pseudo-persons. This recognition dynamic justifies seeing robots as worthy of moral consideration from a virtue ethical standpoint as it predicts the pre-reflective formation of persistent affective dispositions and behavioral habits that are capable of corrupting the human user’s character. We conclude by drawing attention to a potential paradox drawn forth by our analysis and by examining the main conceptual conundrums that our approach has to face.

Killing Corporations to Save Humans: How Corporate Personhood, Human Rights, and the Corporate Death Penalty Intersect

There is a growing sense of frustration among certain groups that the attribution of rights and responsibilities to corporations is evolving in a manner contrary to the best interests of natural persons. In the United States Supreme Court, for example, we have recently seen an expansion of corporate free speech rights (Citizens United, 2010) and religious free exercise rights (Hobby Lobby, 2014), while arguments for holding corporate actors accountable for complicity in human rights violations have been rejected (Kiobel, 2013; Jesner, 2018). One of the primary justifications for expanding corporate rights is the belief that corporate rights should essentially track the rights of the natural persons who own or manage them, which is a position often equated with the aggregate or real entity theory of corporate personhood. Meanwhile, one of the justifications for limiting corporate responsibility is a feared loss of the economic benefits that corporate status bestows on society as a whole in the form of job creation, innovation, etc. This fear of lost productivity is also prominent in discussions surrounding the “corporate death penalty.” This book chapter, forthcoming in The Hostile Takeover (U. of Toronto Press), will argue that the corporate death penalty and corporate personhood are connected in the context of corporate accountability for human rights violations because the fear of the negative consequences of corporate accountability embodied in the corporate death penalty strengthens arguments in favor of corporate personhood theories that support expanding corporate rights, while those same corporate personhood theories support limiting corporate accountability, including accountability via the corporate death penalty. Finally, a number of arguments that challenge both the pro-rights corporate personality theories and the anti-accountability fears triggered by threats of a corporate death penalty will be discussed, thus providing a reasonable starting point for activists seeking greater corporate accountability for human rights violations to challenge the current trend, at least as perceived by some, towards greater corporate rights and less corporate accountability.

Sõdadevaheline vene emigratsioon suures ilmas ja väikeses Eesti / Interwar Russian Emigration in the Larger World and "Little Estonia"

Sõdadevaheline vene emigratsioon suures ilmas ja väikeses Eesti / Interwar Russian Emigration in the Larger World and "Little Estonia"

Whose Rights, Which Duties? Political Claims in the Sphere of Labor Policy in the Times of Crisis: The Social Citizenship Perspective

The goal of this article is to explore the discursive construction of social citizenship of various labor market actors during crisis. Using the newspaper data from nine countries we conduct a quantitative and qualitative study of the rights and duties attributed to employees, employers, and outsiders in the labor market. We find that the attribution of rights to all groups prevails and the most frequent are the claims supporting employees’ rights. In a context of crisis severity, we find three distinct groups of discourse on rights and duties in the labor market sphere. A severe crisis created conditions for labor organizations to claim the rights of employees. A moderate crisis created the ground for the state to (re)call the rights of the outsiders. In countries in which crisis was present in the discourse, rather than in real terms, a window of opportunity emerged for markets and employers to claim their freedoms and rights.Related Articles Temple, Luke, Maria T. Grasso, Barbara Buraczynska, Sotirios Karampampas, and Patrick English. 2016. “.” Politics & Policy 44 (): 553–576. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12161/abstract König, Pascal D. 2015. “.” Politics & Policy 43 (): 647–678. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12130/abstract McBeth, Mark K., Donna L. Lybecker, and Kacee A. Garner. 2010. “.” Politics & Policy 38 (): 1–23. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00226.x/abstractRelated MediaYoutube. 2016. “Centre for Inclusion and Citizenship ∼ Rights Based Social Policy.” https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfgMuy2zkhXLDTUAgmZTK2Q/videos?flow=grid&view=0&sort=p

Focus: Supreme Court of Argentina Expands Recognition of Freedom of Association

Page 8 Volume 23 Issue 1 2016 INTERNATIONAL union rights FOCUS ❐ LATIN AMERICA organisation’, which is protected by Article 14 bis of the Constitution, and is supported by the observations of ILO’s supervisory bodies on ILO Convention No 87. Following the principle of the Constitution, the Court understood freedom as the ability both to form trade unions and to adopt their own internal structure, activities and action programme, without the intervention of public authorities limiting or obstructing the exercise of that right; and democracy as participation and union pluralism. Agreeing with the ILO’s supervisory bodies (the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations) the Court observed that the distinction between most representative and less representative unions in the national legislation should not prohibit less representative trade unions from defending the interests of their members, or from organising their activities and formulating their programmes. Furthermore, the Court remarked on the ILO’s observations that the national legislation is not compatible with the ILO Conventions No 87, No 98 and No 135 amongst others, and demanded on several occasions that the Argentinian Government take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention No 87 of the ILO. The Court stressed that the present case concerns a fundamental right; that of the election of delegates, delegates who maintain a direct link with the workers they represent and exercise their representation at the workplace. For this reason, the restriction imposed by the law on ATE exceeded the limited framework that could justify granting an exclusive right to the most representative unions. Finally, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Article 41 of the 1988 Act and recognised ATE’s right to intervene in the elections of staff delegates. Trade union immunity In 2009, trade union immunity was discussed by the Court in the Rossi v. National Army case. Ms Rossi was a worker at the Naval Hospital and the president of a registered union. After a union strike the employer applied disciplinary sanctions and suspended Ms Rossi for five days and changed her place of work. The Argentinian legislation, by virtue of Article 52 of the 1988 Act, guarantees protection to delegates from unions with ‘personería gremial’ against dismissal, suspension and modification of labour conditions during their terms of representation . However, the Court affirmed its 2008 decision as well as and its interpretation of the conSeveral complaints made by the CTA and others trade unions to the ILO preceded the Supreme Court’s extension of freedom of association to all unions NATALIA DELGADO is a PhD candidate in International Labour Law at Birkbeck Law School, University of London. Natalia has a background working with trade unions, union federations, and the ILO O ver the last 8 years, the Supreme Court of Argentina has rendered four decisions that have expanded the recognition of the freedom of association. Although the principle of freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution (of Perón in 1949, reformed by the dictatorship in 1957) and several International Treaties ratified by Argentina, historically the Argentinian approach to trade union rights has been characterised by the attribution of rights according to the number of union members. The Act on trade union associations No. 23551 of 1988, dating from the period of government by Alfonsin (the 1988 Act) provides for two categories of unions (i) the most representative union with a ‘personería gremial’ trade union status and (ii) the less representative union, simply a registered trade union. This model is characterised by this coexistence of unions with trade union status and merely registered trade unions, with attribution of exclusive powers and rights to the former. The trade union status confers benefits such as 1) the conclusion of collective agreements, 2) the representation of the collective interest, 3) trade union immunity, 4) the right to elect representatives, 5) tax exemptions, 6) the right to strike, and 7) the collection of trade union dues through deductions from wages by the employer. Unlike unions with trade union status, registered trade unions do not benefit from fundamental rights, which limits their ability to defend the interests of the workers...

Tempo de trabalho e imaterialidade na teoria social de André Gorz

O artigo trata das formulações de André Gorz sobre trabalho imaterial. Sua análise do capitalismo contemporâneo se baseia num modelo formado pelas categorias conhecimento, valor e capital, no qual conhecimento é a força produtiva principal. Este artigo contrapõe esse modelo a um modelo anterior, formado pelas categorias trabalho, valor e capital, no qual trabalho é a força produtiva principal; realça que a diferença entre os dois está na substituição de trabalho por conhecimento. Numa economia do conhecimento, como a do primeiro modelo, a produtividade da maior parte das atividades não se presta a ser medida pelo tempo de trabalho, como no capitalismo clássico; além disso, muitas delas dependem de saberes práticos que não se prestam a ser codificados e apropriados privadamente. A tese aqui defendida é de que o principal evento por trás da mudança de um modelo a outro é a diluição do tempo de trabalho como critério para medir a produtividade; e isso afeta a teoria do valor e, portanto, a base de cálculo das equivalências pelo capitalismo. Essa é, segundo Gorz, a principal causa da crise do capitalismo e do trabalho assalariado como critério para a atribuição de direitos; e isso é também motivo suficiente para que ele passe a defender a transferência incondicional de renda para as pessoas.