Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 29 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted alphabetically
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 17)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
GRUR International     Full-text available via subscription  
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
International Journal of Innovation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 10)
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 35)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 24)
Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Propiedad Intelectual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial     Open Access  
The Journal of World Intellectual Property     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal
Number of Followers: 20  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1079-9699
Published by Fordham University Homepage  [6 journals]
  • Designing Dupes: A Legislative Proposal for Holding Online Marketplaces
           Contributorily Liable for Counterfeit Goods

    • Authors: Gina Boone
      Abstract: With a simple click on your favorite online marketplace, any consumer can unknowingly buy counterfeit goods. Counterfeits are no longer limited to fake luxury bags on the streets of Chinatown. These dupes can be roller skates, children’s toys, and even car tires. However, counterfeit products’ impact reaches far beyond just consumer health and safety. Counterfeiting negatively affects small businesses, imposes financial burdens, and causes reputational damage. Online marketplaces are aware of the increase of counterfeit products on their websites. Yet, they continue to facilitate its growth because it is unlikely the online platforms will be held liable for the sale of counterfeit goods. Left with very little options, rightsholders often suffer and consumers are unaware of the dangers. In light of these growing concerns, Congress recognizes the need for anti-counterfeiting legislation. Expanding contributory trademark liability could be the most effective way to address this need, but representatives have left anti-counterfeiting law vulnerable. This Note addresses the tension between rightsholders and online marketplaces and proposes regulatory solutions to provide more guidance for anti-counterfeiting legislation.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:32 PDT
  • Should They Stay or Should They Go' African Cultural Goods in
           France’s Public Domain, Between Inalienability, Transfers, and

    • Authors: Clara Cassan
      Abstract: France’s colonialism over Subsharan Africa until the 1960s has had persistant psychological and material consequences. Amongst them is the lingering presence of a significant amount of African objects in French museum collections. In the last five years, Subsaharan African countries have reiterated their desire to receive parts of these collections. Through their “restitution requests,” they identify themselves as the objects’ legitimate owners and claim to have been robbed of their cultural property during colonialism.The exact conditions under which each Subsaharan artifact arrived on French grounds—whether through theft, donations, sales, or looting—remain unsettled. Even where thefts can be proven, they occurred at a time where colonialism was approved by international law. The French government’s recent favorable responses to African restitution requests might have concluded this debate had France’s national heritage not been protected by the five-century old inalienability principle, which prohibits the transfer of any property out of France’s public domain, including the Subsaharan objects in its public museum collections.This Note studies these legal difficulties and proposes a solution based on France’s international duty to promote African culture as a human right. Rather than amending the fundamental inalienability rule, this Note calls for the creation of a legislative commission that will study individual requests in the respect of French legislations, international conventions, national objectives, and world heritage.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:29 PDT
  • Taxing Big Data: A Proposal to Benefit Society for the Use of Private

    • Authors: Ziva Rubinstein
      Abstract: Artificial intelligence, the technology that is currently shaping our world, relies on the data that each individual supplies. In 2017, the Economist magazine asserted that “the world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data.” This assertion is supported by the current data market, which became a hundred-billion-dollar industry in the data broker market alone. However, despite its immense value, individuals are not compensated when their data is collected, shared, or when that data is used to replace them in the job market. Further, companies are legally avoiding taxes on this resource, both during its collection and on the profits it creates.Prior to the widespread use of AI, society expected their private information to be respected. Before the internet boom, companies were willing to pay the public for their information. When information was supplied, people expected some form of payment in return. Now, payment is unnecessary because our phones automatically give companies all of the data they need to know, and then some. Companies have become more reliant on our information and are constantly collecting it at higher rates, but no longer pay us because they no longer need our consent.Currently, no legal regime provides solutions or safeguards for this exploitation. This allows companies to accumulate and share mass amounts of personal information, while financially harming individuals in the process. Recognizing the importance of the legislature to combat the resulting harms of emerging innovation, this Note proposes a unique solution which addresses both the exploitation of our data and corporate tax avoidance: a tax on the data itself
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:25 PDT
  • Abridging the Fifth Amendment: Compelled Decryption, Passwords, &

    • Authors: Raila Cinda Brejt
      Abstract: Technological developments change the way we perform tasks by creating more efficient solutions to old problems and giving rise to opportunities not previously possible. Advances in communications technology have made the world feel smaller and more accessible. These changes also affect the methodology of both criminal activity and the investigative procedures of law enforcement. Our fundamental rights are challenged as judges and state actors try to strike the perfect balance between longstanding values and contemporary problems. This Note considers the Fifth Amendment challenges that arise when law enforcement attempts to obtain evidence from a criminal defendant’s encrypted device. This Note will argue that the application of the foregone conclusion doctrine of the Fifth Amendment should require the government to show independent knowledge of the contents of the device that they seek prior to courts granting decryption compulsion orders of the criminal defendant’s personal device. Biometric decryption should be considered the same as password encryption and distinguished from the physical act exceptions to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. To preserve the protections of the Fifth Amendment, we must resist the development of ambiguous and abridged doctrines that carry the potential to swallow our fundamental rights.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:21 PDT
  • The German NetzDG as Role Model or Cautionary Tale' Implications for
           the Debate on Social Media Liability

    • Authors: Patrick Zurth
      Abstract: What can be done against discrimination, bullying, insults, and the spread of dangerous fake news on social media platforms' While platforms in the United States enjoy broad discretion on how to approach that issue, there are both legal and political debates regarding social media regulation. Germany, by contrast, advances the opposite approach: requiring social media providers to block or remove illegal content. The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (“NetzDG,” “Network Enforcement Act,” the “Act”) of 2017 outlines a specific procedure for implementing such a claim. The Act is the first of its kind in the western democratic states. Other countries have invoked or discussed whether to follow the German example, which could make NetzDG a pioneer in its strategy of combating hate speech and fake news. This Article is intended to explain the background, mode of operation, and reception of the NetzDG. Furthermore, this Article will attempt to clear up misunderstandings and discuss current developments around this Act. A main purpose of this Article is to examine whether the Act is a suitable prototype for the United States Congress to introduce regarding platform liability and to determine which alternatives are available at hand. To that end, the Article evaluates the constitutional leeway for a regulation of social media. The Article concludes that Congress could establish principles and mechanisms similar to the NetzDG which, despite its room for improvement, is better than its reputation. Data and recent judgments indicate that the debate surrounding this system, however, was based on exaggerated assumptions and misunderstandings. Therefore, it is hopeful that the United States averts the defected discussion surrounding the NetzDG and draws positive and negative lessons from it.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:17 PDT
  • Ocularcentrism and Deepfakes: Should Seeing Be Believing'

    • Authors: Katrina G. Geddes
      Abstract: The pernicious effects of misinformation were starkly exposed on January 6, 2021, when a violent mob of protestors stormed the nation’s capital, fueled by false claims of election fraud. As policymakers wrestle with various proposals to curb misinformation online, this Article highlights one of the root causes of our vulnerability to misinformation, specifically, the epistemological prioritization of sight above all other senses (“ocularcentrism”). The increasing ubiquity of so-called “deepfakes”—hyperrealistic, digitally altered videos of events that never occurred—has further exposed the vulnerabilities of an ocularcentric society, in which technology-mediated sight is synonymous with knowledge. This Article traces the evolution of visual manipulation technologies that have exploited ocularcentrism and evaluates different means of addressing the issues raised by deepfakes, including the use of copyright law.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:14 PDT
  • The Sharing Economy & The Platform Operator‐User‐Provider “PUP
           Model”: Analytical Legal Frameworks

    • Authors: Juan Jose Diaz-Granados et al.
      Abstract: The Sharing Economy and related platform technologies have disrupted work, consumption, and business in ways unimaginable even a decade ago. Creating great wealth and opportunity for some, the Sharing Economy has equally undermined job security and safety for many others. One challenge for regulators, legal advisors, and scholars is developing a rigorous analytical model for these related phenomena. We present the first comprehensive legal framework for distinguishing and analyzing the various components of the Sharing Economy and their interrelationships. Our analysis is based on contract law and property law, providing a delimitation within the Sharing Economy and platform technologies based on legal categories. Our approach provides a foundation for analytical rigor that has been absent to date.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:11 PDT
  • Free Speech in the Modern Age

    • Authors:
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:08 PDT
  • 23andMe: Attack of the Clones and Other Concerns

    • Authors: Claire M. Amodio
      Abstract: A few years ago, ancestry websites took the world by storm. People were fascinated with their history and heritage and wanted to find out more about where they came from. Then along came 23andMe, which allowed people to not only unearth their familial roots, but also bring to light unknown medical conditions or predispositions to certain medical issues. 23andMe then took the unprecedented step of teaming up with a pharmaceutical company to create drugs with its users’ genetic information. After this announcement, some users were caught off guard, having had no idea that their genetic information—something so sensitive and uniquely personal to them—was being used to create drugs. While 23andMe presented this possibility in their Research Consent Document, it is clear that many users either did not read it or simply did not understand the terms of their participation. This begs the question: how do users effectively pull their genetic information from research they did not necessarily intend to participate in'Neither the current American statutory scheme nor property and contract case law provide these users with protection or any way to withdraw from all research they deem unacceptable. Courts have ruled that people who allow their genetic information to be used for research forfeit their property rights to it and that it is not relevant if people did not read the consent form they agreed to, as long as they were put on notice of additional terms. Since these avenues for legal recourse are essentially blocked for users that want to reclaim their genetic information, they should instead pursue a clearer path. Examining gametic material jurisprudence— a similarly situated but more consumer-friendly area of law which involves disputes over the rights to the genetic information found in eggs, sperm, and embryos—may just reveal that new path.This Note examines the various issues 23andMe’s research program presents for users who wish to fully remove their genetic information from 23andMe’s research given the current American statutory scheme and case law in various American jurisdictions. Under these legal frameworks, the courts do not look to the intent of the parties in deciding who has rights to the genetic material. Rather, courts look to whether there was a forfeiture, consent, and notice of terms. This is in spite of the well-documented fact that people often do not fully read or understand contracts, especially internet contracts, when they agree to them. In contrast, gametic material jurisprudence looks beyond contracts and certain acts to the intent of the donors in deciding who has rights to the gametic material. This legal framework recognizes the reality that people do not necessarily read or understand what they agree to when they allow their genetic material to be used in research and gives those who did not intend to participate in certain kinds of research a way to permanently reclaim their genetic material.
      PubDate: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 08:33:41 PDT
  • Copyright Fair Use and the Digital Carnivalesque: Towards A New Lexicon of
           Transformative Internet Memes

    • Authors: David Tan et al.
      Abstract: The influence of social media in the 21st century has led to new social norms of behavior with individuals presenting themselves to others, whether physically or virtually, on various social media platforms. As a result, these new trends have led recent society to be characterized as a “presentational cultural regime” and a “specular economy.” In a Bakhtinian digital carnivalesque, internet memes present a feast of challenges to exceptions and limitations in copyright law. Memes encompass a wide range of expression about the human experience, while also existing as a playful mode of culturally permissible expression in online social communications rather than as self-contained and specific categories such as parody or satire. This Article analyzes how, and to what extent, internet memes should be protected by the fair use doctrine. It concludes that as the digital intercommunicative persona construction becomes pandemic in the contemporary moment, more and more images will inevitably become the raw materials in the online making and remaking of the public self in an anti-hierarchical networked community. Copyright law is slowly and belatedly learning a new cultural vocabulary that it needs to translate into a legal lexicon relevant to judges and lawmakers.
      PubDate: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 08:33:38 PDT
  • Democratizing Platform Privacy

    • Authors: Sari Mazzurco
      Abstract: The online platform political economy—that is, the interrelationship of economic and political power in the exchange of online services for personal information—has endowed platforms with overwhelming power to determine consumers’ information privacy. Mainstream legal scholarship on information privacy has focused largely on an economic problem: individual consumers do not obtain their “optimal” level of privacy due to a bevy of market failures. This Article presents the political issue: that platforms’ hegemonic control over consumers’ information privacy renders the rules they impose illegitimate from a democratic perspective. It argues platform hegemony over consumers’ information privacy is a political problem, in the first instance, due to the social foundations of normative information privacy and the social character of personal information. Although issues affecting society in this manner are typically met with government intervention—through the promulgation of law—or class-action litigation, neither of these safeguards have effectively protected consumers’ information privacy. Rather than empower consumers to determine information privacy norms and how to protect them, the law’s reliance on platform self-regulation through notice and consent has empowered platforms to make these determinations unilaterally.Given the government’s failure to regulate effectively the platform political economy, this Article proposes an alternative to government action. Specifically, this Article contends that the existing private governance of information privacy ought to strive for democratic legitimacy. This Article draws an analogy between the platform political economy and the labor political economy of the early twentieth century and proposes that concepts and mechanisms from industrial democracy, which sought to legitimate workplace decision-making can serve as a toolkit for the legitimation of information privacy rules.
      PubDate: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 08:33:35 PDT
  • Fairness, Copyright, and Video Games: Hate the Game, Not the Player

    • Authors: Shani Shisha
      Abstract: Creative communities often rely on social norms to regulate the production of creative content. Yet while an emerging body of literature has focused on isolated accounts of social norms operating in discrete, small-scale creative industries, no research to date has explored the social norms that pervade the world’s largest content microcosm—the sprawling video game community.Now a veritable global phenomenon, the video game industry has recently grown to eclipse the music and motion picture industries. But despite its meteoric rise, the video game industry has provoked little attention from copyright scholars. This Article is the first to explore the shifting role of copyright law in the gaming community, where game developers are increasingly using a complex amalgam of legal and nonlegal tools to regulate creative output. Based on an in-depth analysis of the extralegal norms that govern creative content in the video game industry, this Article distills a richly detailed account of the relationship between video game creators and consumers. It maps the intricate web of interests underpinning the relationship between game developers and consumers; identifies a rich cadre of fairness-driven social norms that permeate the gaming community; and considers the implications of these findings for copyright law. The Article ultimately concludes that strong copyright protection is largely (though not entirely) inessential in areas where norms of fairness drive the production of creative content.
      PubDate: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 08:33:32 PDT
  • Something Old, Something New: Forecasting Willing Buyer/Willing Seller’s
           Impact on Songwriter Royalties

    • Authors: Daniel Abowd
      Abstract: Mechanical royalties payable to songwriters for digital reproductions of their works on services such as Spotify and Apple Music are determined through a convoluted quasi-trial in front of an administrative body called the Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”). The CRB is itself governed by statutory rate standards that constrain the types of evidence and analyses it may consider when setting royalty rates.In 2018, Congress passed a much-heralded, consensus piece of music legislation called the Music Modernization Act (“MMA”). The MMA attacked a broad swath of issues across the music industry, including, most visibly, establishing a blanket license for digital mechanical licenses, and a statutory entity to administer that license. But buried within the MMA was a less-celebrated wrinkle: a provision that replaced the old 801(b) rate standard used by the CRB for mechanical royalties with a new “willing buyer/willing seller” rate standard. While the new standard was seen as a victory for songwriters, its precise practical effects remain unsettled. Will it really increase rates' If so, why' What evidence, arguments, and analysis will it allow—and foreclose—relative to the old standard'This Comment seeks to answer these questions through a comparative case study of two past CRB proceedings. First, it dissects the analyses that shaped the CRB’s Phonorecords III decision—the most recent mechanical royalty rate-setting proceeding, and the last to use the old 801(b) rate standard. Second, it undertakes a similar analysis of the CRB’s Web IV decision, the most recent instance in which the CRB applied the willing buyer/willing seller standard to a rate-setting proceeding for a different rights type (the digital performance of sound recordings). It then compares and contrasts those two proceedings to predict how willing buyer/willing seller will operate in the digital mechanical royalty context. From that comparison it concludes that, while the change does skew songwriter-friendly, there is also a significant amount of uncertainty that may render the change less significant than copyright owners hope—and music licensees fear.
      PubDate: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:50:31 PST
  • Conventional Protections for Commercial Fan Art Under the U.S. Copyright

    • Authors: Rachel Morgan
      Abstract: For many years, artists and consumers of pop culture have channeled their artistic skills into creating derivative works of their favorite fictional stories and characters. In the United States, fans of Japanese anime and manga have made a living selling artwork of their favorite characters at anime conventions, large gatherings that bring in fellow fans from all around the country. Despite the prevalence of this practice, there is a glaring legal issue: these fictional characters are the intellectual property of the authors who created them, and fan art is blatant copyright infringement. However, there are still many economic advantages to permitting the sale of fan art. This Note will propose a way to apply the fair use defense to commercial fan art in a way that protects the economic interests of both authors and fans.
      PubDate: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:50:26 PST
  • Defensive Patent Litigation Strategy for Chinese Companies: A Review of
           the Extraterritorial Reach of the United States Patent Laws

    • Authors: Lisa D. Zang
      Abstract: China has experienced an extraordinary transformation from a poor, developing nation into a global economic power. With China becoming one of the U.S.’s largest trading partners, however, Chinese companies have become increasingly enmeshed in U.S. patent litigations. Although the U.S. patent laws are intended only to govern conduct within the nation’s borders, the line between domestic and foreign economic activities has become increasingly blurred. Modern sales transactions often span multiple countries, and in such situations, it may not be clear whether the U.S. patent laws apply. For Chinese companies facing exposure to U.S. patent litigations, it is critical to understand what qualifies as an infringing “sale” and “offer to sell” within the U.S. for purposes of determining patent infringement liability and damages. It is also important to understand the circumstances under which a foreign company may be liable for patent infringement in the U.S. if products that are manufactured and sold overseas independently make their way into the U.S. This Article addresses the foregoing issues against the backdrop of the extraterritorial reach and limitations of the U.S. patent laws.
      PubDate: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:50:22 PST
  • Mark of the Devil: The University as Brand Bully

    • Authors: James Boyle et al.
      Abstract: In recent years, universities have been accused in news stories of becoming “trademark bullies,” entities that use their trademarks to harass and intimidate beyond what the law can reasonably be interpreted to allow. Universities have also intensified efforts to gain expansive new marks. The Ohio State University’s attempt to trademark the word “the” is probably the most notorious. There has also been criticism of universities’ attempts to use their trademarks to police clearly legal speech about their activities. But beyond provocative anecdotes, how can one assess whether a particular university is truly bullying, since there are entirely legitimate reasons for universities—like all trademark holders—to assert their rights' Online “rankings” of trademark bullies have obscure methodologies. We lack both an empirical account of major aspects of the landscape, and a rigorous case study giving individualized, almost ethnographic, information about what the accused academic trademark bullies think they are doing. What are their legal arguments and how would impartial experts assess those claims' What is their intellectual property worldview, their idea of the role that trademarks have in the university’s mission'In this Article, we attempt to provide an answer to those questions. We conducted the first empirical study of a prominent university’s trademark assertion practice—both the legitimate exercise and defense of its brands and conduct that strays over the line into bullying. To do this, we took the university popularly identified as the number one collegiate trademark bully and conducted a comparative empirical ranking of its behavior as compared to other classes of universities—academically elite institutions, major sports programs and so on—to find out if any of these categories were predictors of aggressive trademark assertion. Second, we hand-coded every single trademark opposition filed by the alleged bully over a four-year period, assigning each one a numerical merit score. We also analyzed the arguments that the university provided, thus allowing us not merely to identify whether this was a true case of bullying, but what the alleged bully had to say for itself. Unfortunately, the accused bully is our own university, Duke. Is Duke an outlier or a bellwether' There are reasons to suspect the latter. After assessing a variety of possible explanations for anomalous aggressiveness in trademark assertion, ranging from legal change and licensing culture to behavioral economics, the Article concludes with suggestions for reform, both of the law and of university practices.
      PubDate: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:50:17 PST
  • Plus or Minus America: Spanski, Geoblocking Technology, and Personal
           Jurisdiction Analysis for Nonresident Defendants

    • Authors: Daniel Canedo
      Abstract: The use of a geoblock—technology that restricts access to websites based on user location—is a controversial topic, and one that plays a role in defining the scope under which nonresident defendants may be subjected to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts in copyright infringement cases. For example, a recent D.C. Court of Appeals case, Spanski Enterprises, Inc. v. Telewizja Polska, S.A., involved a Polish television network whose geoblock setting, known as “minus America,” failed to restrict website access in violation of a Canadian company’s exclusive rights under the U.S. Copyright Act. Cases like Carsey-Werner Co., LLC v. British Broadcasting Corp. and Triple Up Ltd. v. Youku Tudou Inc. also dealt with nonresident defendants whose public performances reached the U.S. in violation of another’s exclusive rights under the Act. However, in reviewing these and other cases that dove deep into personal jurisdiction analysis, one sees that there is room for simplification.This Article discusses the various components of jurisdictional analysis with regard to nonresidents whose content reaches the U.S. and results in a potential violation of the Copyright Act. Looking at approaches from the Ninth Circuit, Second Circuit, and others, courts—weary of mandating geoblocking technology for websites—have held that general jurisdiction plays a much smaller role in personal jurisdiction analysis, leaving specific jurisdiction as the avenue in which a court may subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction. A review of the relevant case law shows that there are gaps, and that filling those gaps can make the inquiry more straightforward. Consequently, this Article proposes a revision to the analysis through an amendment to the Copyright Act specifying that reasonable efforts to implement a geoblock will negate the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. The proposal would be subject to any jurisdictional immunity exceptions under applicable law, or to any contractual agreements to the contrary.Without imposing mandatory geoblocks, the proposed amendment will not only simplify the analysis, but it will also provide clarity to nonresident defendants regarding their potential liability when their activities reach the U.S, while allowing courts to continue exercising personal jurisdiction within the bounds of due process. That simplicity and clarity may also provide an incentive for internet actors to take responsibility in recognizing the territorial limits of copyright law.
      PubDate: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:50:13 PST
  • The Dinosaur in the Living Room: A Proposal to Enable Academic Access to
           Fossils Discovered on Private Land

    • Authors: Sara K. Mazurek
      Abstract: The United States has been a major source of scientifically significant paleontological discoveries over the course of its history. In addition to invaluable primary source material for the study of evolution and climate change, American paleontology has additionally been invoked as symbols of American power since the founding of the country. Even though fossils are prominent national heritage, the United States today only uniformly regulates their excavation and use on federal public lands through the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. When fossils are discovered on private land, landowners and those with whom they contract often sell them to private collectors, which can lead to research quality specimens becoming inaccessible to museums and universities seeking to research or publicly display them. This Note will use the discovery and litigation over the Dueling Dinosaurs, fossils of two dinosaurs preserved in combat, as a case study to demonstrate the current futility of legal action in providing for scientific access. This Note will argue that the federal government should pass a Model Act that provides universities and museums the opportunity to appeal for a delay in the sale for scientifically significant specimens that would allow an institution to have temporary custody over the material. Such a proposal should not be subject to just compensation under eminent domain law because of the financial benefit landowners should receive from affiliation with and analysis from such an institution.
      PubDate: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:26:16 PST
  • Pain Mismanagement: The Opioid Problem in the NFL

    • Authors: Dylan McGowan
      Abstract: In 2014 and 2015, two groups of former National Football League (“NFL”) players brought lawsuits against the NFL for its handling and distribution of opioids and other dangerous painkillers. While neither lawsuit has succeeded in its goal of addressing the painkiller problem, they brought to light the broken pain management culture of the NFL and the health risks these medications pose to both active and former players. Addressing the opioid problem should be a top priority for the NFL and the National Football League Players’ Association (“NFLPA”). This Note examines the pain management crisis in the NFL, and analyzes the two player lawsuits, illustrating the difficulty players face in obtaining relief in the courts. Additionally, this Note discusses the joint NFL-NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and demonstrates the NFLPA’s need to negotiate for changes in that agreement to secure relief for former players and protect active players from any further harm.
      PubDate: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:26:12 PST
  • Protectable “Art”: Urinals, Bananas, and Shredders

    • Authors: Richard H. Chused
      Abstract: Creative souls have long played with our imaginations, as well as our tastes, about what art may be. The resulting absurdist, dada, and everyday object art forces us to step back and ask a few intellectual property questions about what this art has done, undone, or reconstructed in the copyright world. The Copyright Act grants protection to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” This Article explores how pranksterism, eccentricity, repackaging of ordinary objects, and decay can be subsumed within legal categories of copyright law like originality, fixation, protectable two- or three-dimensional art, and moral rights.Taking concepts from the history of art, from modern notions of visual perception, and from recent developments in the under-standing of random motion, this Article unravels copyright conundrums involving artistic use of everyday objects. Three artists are highlighted: Marcel Duchamp, who created art by placing a urinal on a pedestal; Maurizio Cattelan, who recently hung slowly decaying bananas at an exhibition; and Banksy, who inserted a shredder in a composition’s frame and activated it at an auction. Comparing the work of these three provocative artists with a variety of other well-known creative souls leads to the conclusion that Duchamp’s urinal, Cattelan’s creation of instructions for taping a banana to a wall, and Banksy’s integration of a shredder into the frame of a two-dimensional work are fully protected as copyrightable works.
      PubDate: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:26:07 PST
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-