Nature Of Intellectual Property Rights Research Articles

General Provisions of Intellectual Property Rights in Ukraine

The article is devoted to the study of the general provisions of intellectual property law in Ukraine. The article notes that the importance of protecting property rights in the intellectual sphere has been growing rapidly in recent decades. A theoretical and practical understanding of the nature of intellectual property rights was carried out based on the analysis of current legislation and available scientific, methodical and journalistic materials. The list of laws that regulate activities in the field of intellectual property, both at the national and international level, is given. It is interesting to note that in Ukraine there are quite a lot of special legislative acts regulating the above activities. Attention is focused on the adaptation of Ukrainian legislation to the legal system of the European Union. International legal acts regulating the protection of intellectual property rights are given. Scientific and regulatory approaches to defining the concept of intellectual property rights are considered. It is established that this concept can be considered in two ways: objective and subjective. In an objective sense, in the legal literature, intellectual property law is considered as a system of legal norms that regulates homogeneous social relations in the field of intellectual property. In a subjective sense, the right of intellectual property is considered as personal property and non-property rights of natural persons, which according to the current legislation belong to the authors for the results of intellectual activity. Special attention is paid to the interpretation of the concepts of property and non-property intellectual property rights. Property intellectual property is the author's rights to the results obtained from his creative activity, similar to the property rights of those who create material objects with their labor (devices, devices, mechanisms, new information technologies, etc.). Non-property intellectual property rights are a set of moral, mental, rational, intellectual and other human rights, which by their nature cannot be alienated from the owner. A comparative analysis was made between intellectual property law and property law in general, and their relationship was also analyzed.

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Navigating the Complexities of Cyber Law

Abstract This article provides an extensive analysis of the relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property (IP) within the framework of Cyber Law. It examines the current state of AI and IP, emphasizing the legal and regulatory implications of their intersection. A comprehensive literature review and legal analysis, coupled with a comparative study of AI and IP regulatory frameworks, informs the discussion. We explore the privacy and data protection issues in AI, the evolving nature of Intellectual Property rights in the AI era, and the liability concerns related to AI applications. A comparative analysis of AI and IP regulation across various jurisdictions provides insights into the effectiveness of international frameworks and the challenges posed by cross-border regulation. The article further discusses the need for flexible and adaptive regulatory approaches that balance risk management with innovation promotion. We then highlight emerging legal and regulatory issues in AI and IP and offer recommendations for policymakers, regulators, and AI developers. Finally, the article encapsulates the key findings and their implications for AI and IP regulation, outlining future challenges and opportunities in this domain.

Arctic Indigenous Peoples and Intellectual Property Law

Abstract This article deals with current issues regarding the protection of the traditional cultural expression and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples of the Russian Arctic in the context of intellectual property rights. The relevant problem in terms of legal regulation is the collective nature of intellectual property rights for indigenous peoples, since we are talking about a society whose composition is constantly changing as some members are born and others die. Still, rights relating to cultural heritage belong to the people as bearers of their tradition. The collective nature of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples requires theoretical justification as a new phenomenon and a definition of the term, as well as special legal regulations and the development of mechanisms for the implementation of the right.

The Nature of Intellectual Property Rights for Works Produced by Artificial Intelligence

The sweeping effect of technology cannot be overemphasized in our world today. Before now, computers used to be merely tools to carry out diverse functions, now these computers can now perform these tasks with or without human help. Artificial intelligence is growing in leaps and bounds daily, its impact is huge, and it keeps pervading all sectors. The emergence of artificial intelligence increasingly contends with the hackneyed belief that creativity is the exclusive preserve of human beings. The advent of artificial intelligence, especially considering the fact it is now capable of making creative and inventive works poses a form of legal challenge. Intellectual property laws refer to a body of laws that seek to recognize and protect products of human intellect, and grant creators and inventors certain legal rights to control the commercial exploitation of their work or invention. These forms of protection include but are not limited to copyright and patent. Now that computer algorithms and learning machines have now become a source of creativity, the question is now whether or not these machines can enjoy intellectual property rights on works made by them, even though they are non-human entities. It becomes pertinent to reconsider intellectual property laws generally in the light of this reality. This work seeks to examine the legal questions posed by artificial intelligence and other consequential issues.

AI©R

ABSTRACTOn 25 October 2018, Christie’s sold a rather interesting and mysterious work. However, in contrast to the works that this auction house tends to sell, Portrait of Edmond Belamy was created by an Artificial Intelligence (AI). This and other similar creations have been in the middle of academic and regulatory discussions relating to the nature of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) that could result from them. Unfortunately, these discussions tend to present ideas in absence of transitions among markets and/or a lack of proper understanding of certain IPRs like those related to derivative works. Based on these elements, the present document aims to present a proposal built upon a hypothetical AI Copyright (AI©R). To develop this latter, we focused our attention on the plastic arts market and employed the analysis of market imperfections under the light of a right that tends to be overlooked by artists, scholars and lawyers alike: the Droite de Suite (DDS). Building upon the analysis of this right, the AI©R has been structured as a ‘label’ aimed to address market imperfections, and to recognize the ‘moral’ right of the AI and the economic rights of the individuals and/or companies that could be empowered to claim them.

The Treatment of Public Health Measures Affecting Intellectual Property Under Multilateral and Plurilateral Trade and Investment Agreements

Abstract This article considers the interpretation of provisions in international economic agreements that protect intellectual property as they relate to public health measures, and in particular to restrictions on the use of tobacco trademarks. A series of decisions, most recently the World Trade Organization (WTO) panel decision holding that Australia’s plain packaging measures for tobacco products comply with WTO obligations, allow for some generalisations. These include: (1) the nature of intellectual property rights is to confer a privilege of exclusive use on the rights-holder; (2) the interpretation of generally-worded treaty provisions is apt to be informed by recognition of the power of States to regulate for the purposes of public health; and (3) where provisions contain their own specifically-worded balancing tests, any direct or indirect reference to regulation for public health contained in the treaty is likely to be treated as weighing very heavily in favour of the legality of regulatory measures.

To What Extent Do Intellectual Property Rights Drives the Nature of Private International Law in the Era of Globalism?

The purpose of this article is to dissect the nature of intellectual property rights in the context of private international law. In other words, the primary focus is how private international law, i.e., conflict of laws, from the perspective of jurisdiction, applicable law, and enforcement rules have been developed and applied to intellectual property rights.

Can 'The Is' and 'The Ought' be Married? Creating a Sustainable Legal Framework for Intangible Property in the East African Community

The Common Market Protocol of the East African Community (EAC) serves the purpose of encouraging free movement of goods and services across the borders of the EAC Partner States. However, recent legal battles in Uganda and Rwanda highlight the fact that the territorial nature of Intellectual Property Rights is at variance with the spirit of free trade within the EAC, and the legal protection meant to go with such free trade. Coupled with this is the fact that national borders sometimes cut across ethnic groupings that share cultural traits. There is an increasing need to protect Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) from misappropriation and exploitation, which inevitably pit different communities and their host countries against each other within the EAC. This is primarily due to the fact that the Partner States within the EAC have responded differently to the need for policy and legal frameworks regarding the protection of TK and TCEs. This paper looks at the contrast between the general interests of the EAC Partner States as portrayed in key treaties that they have signed, and their legal obligations and interests as derived from their respective policy and legal frameworks pertaining to the protection of Intellectual Property, TK and TCEs. The paper points out the underlying challenges that have enabled the situation as it is to be different from what it ought to be in terms of generating enjoyment of free movement of goods and services, as well as promoting a better IP and quasi-IP (TK and TCEs) environment in the EAC. The paper goes on to argue that specific reforms are needed within the EAC region as a whole, as well as within each Partner State, so as to generate a win-win situation.

“The Fruits of Intellectual Labor”: International Student Views of Intellectual Property

In this paper, we report on the results of a study conducted at New York University Abu Dhabi in the fall of 2013. Our goal in the study was to gain a global college student perspective on issues related to intellectual property, including copyright and plagiarism. We found that, contrary to popular opinion, most of our students have a solid understanding of the nature of intellectual property rights, as interpreted within the North American higher education community. In addition, the majority of our students view violations of intellectual property rights and norms, such as plagiarism, negatively.

Fusion of Horizons: A New Perspective on Intellectual Property Rights

The mission of legal philosophy and philosophical hermeneutics has always been to comprehend the nature of intellectual property rights and the intellectual property rights system for the purpose of improving them. The difficulty of this task lies in the limitations in legal thinking resulting from the division of labor in the legal profession. A clear perception of the nature of intellectual property rights and the intellectual property rights system can only be obtained when we transcend intellectual property rights law. If we adopt the thinking of legal philosophy and the logic of dialectics to analyze the intellectual property rights system and explore the differing nature of institutional structures and their interrelationships, we can show that the intellectual property rights system is essentially an institutional arrangement involving balancing different considerations and implying a high level of political intellect. Only when intellectual property rights legislation possesses this kind of wisdom will people voluntarily abide by its rules in their life and work.

The Political Economy of TRIPS

One of the numerous significant outcomes of the Uruguay Round has been the incorporation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in the multilateral trade agenda, in the form of the TRIPs agreement. Many issues have been raised over such a controversial move, such as: the private rights/public benefits dilemma, the legitimacy of the actual process of the globalization of IPRs whereby private authority has played a pivotal agenda setting role, the function of IPRs in the economic development of developing countries, the incursion of national sovereignty in the realm of IP policy making, the relationship between IPRs and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Transfer of Technology (TOT). However, the concerns related with the governance of TRIPs are not matters of legal technicality and economic calculation as it is widely held by the advocates of the ‘commonsense’ view; instead, this paper attempts to advance the case against the TRIPs agreement on the basis that the aforementioned issues, which involve adjustment processes and uneven distribution of benefits and costs in favour of the owners of knowledge, are politically contestable, just as the nature of IPRs themselves. Hence, by adopting a critical approach, the dynamics of the ideational and material structures underpinning the process, actors, benefits and costs of making IPRs a trade related issue, will be explored.

When Property Does Not Mean Property: An Analysis of the Existence of International Intellectual Property†

AbstractThis paper endeavours to dispel the logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights and aims to show that the term “international intellectual property” may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort.To suggest that “there is no such thing as international intellectual property” may have been particularly reasonable prior to the end of the 19thcentury when there was little or no international obligations to protect intellectual property. Nowadays, however, the term “international intellectual property” is, at the very least, misunderstood, if not a clear term that has worked its way into the international legal lexicon with each international intellectual property agreement entered into since the beginning of the beginning of the international period.It is quite plain that individual intellectual property rights such as copyright, patents, registered designs, and registered and unregistered trade mark rights are not international in scope or nature. It is also quite clear that intellectual property rights are territorial in nature as they are derived from national law and are governed exclusively within jurisdictions of such law. This principle is trite and was better observed in a World Intellectual Property Organization survey:Each country determines, for its own territory and independently from any other country, what it is to be protected as intellectual property, who should benefit from such protection, for how long and how protection should be enforced.Despite an apparently logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights, the term “international intellectual property” may infer something more than this. Rather than confining the term to basic interpretation of the words which make the term, international intellectual property may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort. While the standards of recognition and rights granted in relation to such products of intellect may vary between nations, the source of such products remains the same and it is such property which various international agreements seek to govern. It is given through developments in international intellectual property agreements, that a definition of the term may be implied, if not derived.In this paper, I endeavour to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property. As such, I will first establish that there is such a thing as „intellectual property,” despite arguments against the term. I will then move on to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property, particularly in light of the developments in international intellectual property agreements.

Creativity or Coercion: Alternative Perspectives on Rights to Intellectual Property

Part one of this paper considers the question of property rights in general and asks how such rights can be justified, contrasting Consequentialist with other approaches and concludes that it is impossible to avoid a broadly Consequentialist approach. Part two considers the question of intellectual property (IP) and asks how property rights justifications apply to it. The basic economics if IP is indispensable in this discussion. Finally, part three, considers IP in the light of modern technological developments. I conclude that the real dangers lie more in the specific ways government and special interests respond to this technology than from the nature of IP rights themselves.

Principles of copyright in intellectual property law: An overview

The aim of this article is to introduce readers to the legal regime that exists to protect intellectual property rights. The article focuses on South African law, but the nature of intellectual property rights is such that one country cannot develop legal protections without taking the global perspective into consideration. It is generally regarded as lawful to learn from others and virtually no country gives the creator of an idea a perpetual and all-inclusive property right in it against imitators. But there comes a time when the learning process oversteps the mark and imitators ‘attempt to reap where they have not sown’. This has serious implications for developing countries where stringent enforcement of intellectual property rights can lead to a denial of access to vital information. The aim of intellectual property law is therefore to strike a balance between the rights of the creator and the rights of citizens to learn from the experience of others. Whether or not this balance has been achieved is a matter of ongoing debate and concern.

An Alert to the Intellectual Property Bar: The Hague Judgments Convention

This paper takes a hard look at the relationship between international intellectual property litigation and the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Foreign Judgments. The Convention is mainly aimed at creating a way for a civil judgment rendered in one member state to be assured enforcement in all other member states. Toward that end, it defines a series of agreed bases of personal jurisdiction; when a judgment is predicated on one of these bases, other member states are obliged to enforce it. The Convention also determines where particular claims can be litigated-certain claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of particular states, others can be litigated where ever the Convention permits the assertion of adjudicatory authority over the defendant. After briefly describing the terms of the Convention, its application to intellectual property is analyzed. One question is whether the territorial nature of intellectual property rights means that no nation should be permitted to adjudicate intellectual property claims arising under the laws of another jurisdiction. If some extraterritorial adjudication is permissible, the next question is, in what kind of cases. The Convention distinguishes between registered rights cases, where issues of validity-and perhaps even infringement-can only be resolved at the place of registration, and all other intellectual property cases. This article takes the position that the line should be drawn between patent cases on the one hand and copyright and trademark cases on the other. Patent cases require a level of technical expertise that is not as necessary for resolving copyright and trademark cases. Moreover, copyright and trademark cases often involve products that are digitally transmitted and thus can be infringed in many states simultaneously. Consolidated adjudication of such multinational copyright and trademark disputes can save judicial and litigant resources, avoid inconsistent outcomes, and provide fora for developing law for the new borderless market that the creative industries now encounter. The paper ends with a series of proposals to facilitate consolidation and adjudication of intellectual property disputes. In that respect, it acts as background material for a draft judgments convention focusing exclusively on intellectual property litigation, which will be offered by the author and Professor Jane Ginsburg should the Hague efforts be frustrated or culminate in the exclusion of intellectual property from coverage.