Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 28 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted by number of followers
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 29)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
The Journal of World Intellectual Property     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 22)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 17)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
International Journal of Innovation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 8)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Invention Disclosure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
GRUR International     Full-text available via subscription  
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access  
Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial     Open Access  
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal
Number of Followers: 17  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1079-9699
Published by Fordham University Homepage  [6 journals]
  • Algorithms and Misinformation: The Constitutional Implications of
           Regulating Microtargeting

    • Authors: Talia Bulka
      Abstract: The increased popularity of social media in recent years has brought with it unwanted consequences. Most notably, the world is experiencing a widespread epidemic of online misinformation and disinformation. In the form of news stories and advertisements, false information about candidates like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump has spread over Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok. Since false information is often more sensational than the truth, this information is reposted and shared until it reaches millions of people. However, the real culprit of this misinformation phenomenon is microtargeting—algorithms that exploit users’ personal information and previous media interactions to target specific posts to individual users. These algorithms send posts to users’ newsfeeds without regard for the credibility of the information, leading users to believe that what they are seeing is true. Further, microtargeting intensifies political party polarization because users are only shown posts with which they already agree. Can the government do anything about this' This Comment examines the extent to which micro targeting can be regulated without exceeding the confines of the First Amendment.
      PubDate: Thu, 26 May 2022 05:44:28 PDT
  • Failed Analogies: Justice Thomas’s Concurrence in Biden v. Knight
           First Amendment Institute

    • Authors: Sarah S. Seo
      Abstract: Twenty-six years ago, twenty-six words created the internet. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a short, yet powerful, provision that notably protects social media platforms, among other interactive computer services, from liability for content created by third-party users. At the time of its enactment, Section 230 aimed to encourage the robust growth of the then-nascent internet while protecting it from government regulation. More recently, however, it has been wielded by Big Tech companies like Twitter and Facebook to prevent any liability for real-world harms that stem from virtual interactions conducted over their platforms.Although the Supreme Court has never taken on a Section 230 case itself, Justice Thomas individually stands out as one of the most prominent anti-Section 230 advocates today. When the Supreme Court declined to hear a Section 230 case in 2020, Justice Thomas issued a statement respecting the Court’s denial that planted the seeds for his disapproval of the statute. When the Court issued a brief opinion in 2021 instructing a lower court to dismiss a Section 230 case as moot due to the change in the presidential administration, Justice Thomas issued a second statement concurring in the opinion, continuing his charge against Big Tech companies that profit from Section 230 immunity. Most recently, when the Court declined to hear a Section 230 case in 2022, Justice Thomas issued his third statement imploring either Congress to step in or potential litigants to bring up an “appropriate case” so the Supreme Court could interpret Section 230 itself.Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute—his second pass at Section 230—provides Justice Thomas’s most substantive call for reform. His opinion pro- poses recommendations for how the legislature should treat digital platforms and social media companies, analogizing them to common carriers and places of public accommodation. This Note rejects both analogies. To reach this conclusion, this Note examines the histories of both proposed common law frameworks and the creation of Section 230 itself. Finally, this Note suggests limiting this powerful immunity by excluding digital platforms that exhibit deliberate indifference to unlawful or harmful content, or subsequent conduct arising from such content.
      PubDate: Thu, 26 May 2022 05:44:25 PDT
  • Face the Facts, or Is the Face a Fact': Biometric Privacy in Publicly
           Available Data

    • Authors: Daniel Levin
      Abstract: Recent advances in biometric technologies have caused a stir among the privacy community. Specifically, facial recognition technologies facilitated through data scraping practices have called into question the basic precepts we had around exercising biometric privacy. Yet, in spite of emerging case law on the permissibility of data scraping, comparatively little attention has been given to the privacy implications endemic to such practices.On the one hand, privacy proponents espouse the view that manipulating publicly available data from, for example, our social media profiles, derogates from users’ expectations around the kind of data they share with platforms (and the obligations such platforms have for protecting users from illicit uses of that data). On the other hand, free speech absolutists take the stance that, to the extent that biometric data is readily apparent in publicly available data, any restrictions on its secondary uses are prior restraints on speech.This Note proposes that these principles underlying privacy and free speech are compatible. Wholesale bans on biometric technologies misapprehend their legitimate uses for actually preserving privacy. Despite the overwhelming dearth of protections for biometric privacy across the United States, current battles to preserve the few regulations on these data practices illuminate the emerging frontier for privacy and free speech debates.As this Note concludes, existing regulations on biometric data practices withstand First Amendment scrutiny, and strike the appropriate balance between speech and privacy regulations.
      PubDate: Thu, 26 May 2022 05:44:23 PDT
  • NFTs: The Latest Technology Challenging Copyright Law's Relevance
           Within a Decentralized System

    • Authors: Rebecca Carroll
      Abstract: Non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) redefine society’s understanding of digital ownership and transform how creators distribute original works to consumers. This unique and often misunderstood technol- ogy has the potential to yield extraordinary value for both creators and consumers. While NFTs have existed for some time now, the recent frenzy caused by several high-value sales of NFTs exposed a number of unanswered legal questions, particularly in copyright law. NFTs also raise ideological concerns over how much, if any, government oversight and regulation should exist over the “open” internet. This Note explores copyright law’s application to NFTs and seeks to address a number of unanswered copyright law ques- tions, including who has the right to mint a copyrighted work into an NFT. This Note then seeks to address how extending application of copyright law to the decentralized system can support the ideals of a free and open internet.
      PubDate: Thu, 26 May 2022 05:44:20 PDT
  • Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence

    • Authors: Luke Stark et al.
      Abstract: The reanimation of the pseudosciences of physiognomy and phrenology at scale through computer vision and machine learning is a matter of urgent concern. This Article—which contributes to critical data studies, consumer protection law, biometric privacy law, and antidiscrimination law—endeavors to conceptualize and problematize physiognomic artificial intelligence (“AI”) and offer policy recommendations for state and federal lawmakers to forestall its proliferation.Physiognomic AI, as this Article contends, is the practice of using computer software and related systems to infer or create hierarchies of an individual’s body composition, protected class status, perceived character, capabilities, and future social outcomes based on their physical or behavioral characteristics. Physiognomic and phrenological logics are intrinsic to the technical mechanism of computer vision applied to humans. This Article observes how computer vision is a central vector for physiognomic AI technologies and unpacks how computer vision reanimates physiognomy in conception, form, and practice and the dangers this trend presents for civil liberties.This Article thus argues for legislative action to forestall and roll back the proliferation of physiognomic AI. To that end, it considers a potential menu of safeguards and limitations to significantly limit the deployment of physiognomic AI systems, which hopefully can be used to strengthen local, state, and federal legislation. This Article foregrounds its policy discussion by proposing the abolition of physiognomic AI. From there, it posits regimes of U.S. consumer protection law, biometric privacy law, and civil rights law as vehicles for rejecting physiognomy’s digital renaissance in AI. Specifically, it contends that physiognomic AI should be categorically rejected as oppressive and unjust. Second, it argues that lawmakers should declare physiognomic AI unfair and deceptive per se. Third, it proposes that lawmakers should enact or expand biometric privacy laws to prohibit physiognomic AI. Fourth, it recommends that lawmakers should prohibit physiognomic AI in places of public accommodation. It also observes the paucity of procedural and managerial regimes of fairness, accountability, and transparency in ad- dressing physiognomic AI and attend to potential counterarguments in support of physiognomic AI.
      PubDate: Thu, 26 May 2022 05:44:18 PDT
  • The Patent Medium: Toward a Network Paradigm of the Patent Medium

    • Authors: Or Cohen-Sasson
      Abstract: The modern patent system is conceived of as an information platform; it is evident in the common description of the patent system as a quid-pro-quo bargain: Society grants exclusive rights in exchange for information published by a patentee. But is there more to the patent system than merely informing others' Does the patent system also serve as a communication (and not only information) platform, namely, as a medium' Based on an interdisciplinary analysis of the patent system’s structure and features through the lenses of communication studies, this Article suggests that it does. It demonstrates how the patent system—as a medium—enables players to fulfill various communicative ends, much beyond the obvious goal of disseminating legal-technological knowledge. This Article strives to characterize the patent medium, as well as to examine the implications of portraying the patent space as a medium.Utilizing the power of communication analysis, this Article uncovers an existing, somewhat implicit communication paradigm of the patent system as a medium. Although tacit and unofficial, this paradigm is evident through a critical reading of patent scholarship and case law. This unspoken communication paradigm resembles that of a bulletin board: it is linear, straightforward, and focuses on the informative value of communication. However, this bulletin-board paradigm does not fully reflect the actual nature of the communication that transpires within the patent medium. After reexamining the patent space—the rules, structure, participants, and practices—this Article offers an alternative, more comprehensive paradigm of the patent medium—the network paradigm. A network, as opposed to a bulletin board, is a connected, multi-directional, and multi-player platform, which allows communication for various ends (including, but not limited to, informing). Instead of viewing the patent medium statically as a host of informative announcements, the network paradigm suggests a dynamic perspective, considering the patent medium to enable discourse.Beyond its theoretical contribution, the network paradigm serves as a powerful explanatory tool, offering profound implications for patent law. Specifically, the network paradigm resolves current oddities in the patent system; for instance, the network paradigm provides new understandings regarding phenomena in patent law such as patent pledging, early publication, and the first-to-file rule—incidents commonly considered enigmatic or only partially understood. As a tool with theoretical and practical-analytical value, the network paradigm helps both courts and commentators to theorize and rationalize patent law.
      PubDate: Thu, 26 May 2022 05:44:14 PDT
  • “Fair” in the Future' Long-Term Limitations of the Supreme
           Court’s Use of Incrementalism in Fair Use Jurisprudence

    • Authors: Jonathan Alexander Fisher
      Abstract: April 2021 marked the most recent instance of the Supreme Court discussing copyright law, and more specifically fair use, in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. The April 2021 decision notably resolved the case solely on fair use grounds, avoiding a difficult question as to the copyrightability of computer code that generates software user interfaces. By resolving this specific case in this manner, the Supreme Court’s actions seemingly confirm a pattern among fair use cases in which rulings made “narrowly” on the unique factual predicate often produce unclear applications within the “broader” context of fair use. Given the flexible, judge-made origins of the doctrine, each case acts as a guidepost within the “broader” doctrine.This Comment explores how the “narrow” rulings, likely made to account for the Court’s institutional ideals, including incrementalism, may lead to these later fair use limitations. By exploring three fair use cases, this Comment aims to opine on the purported pattern of limitations by highlighting both the soundness of the rulings at their then-present decisions, and within more modern contexts. This Comment also proposes how a conscious shift in an opinion’s scope to include more information on how to apply the then-present case as “broader” guideposts within fair use may solve the limitation issues. This Comment finally evaluates this expanding scope against other possible mechanisms of understanding both application of legal principles to novel scenarios and to other potential fair use solutions.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:21 PDT
  • Bad Publicity: The Diminished Right of Privacy in the Age of Social Media

    • Authors: Kirby Shilling
      Abstract: The “public disclosure of private facts” tort involves determining if and when publication of truthful, albeit embarrassing, facts warrant liability. Such liability inherently runs into First Amendment concerns. This Note analyzes the background of this tort, its status, and its application in different jurisdictions. Scholarship and jurisprudence have traditionally balanced the right to privacy with First Amendment guarantees by looking at different factors, including whether the disclosed information is properly described as “private” and whether it is newsworthy or a matter of legitimate public interest. However, the line between “public” and “private” has become increasingly blurred with new technology and social media. Additionally, determining what is “newsworthy” is especially difficult in a society obsessed with celebrities, gossip, and entertainment. The approaches used to dictate the actionability of the public disclosure of private facts tort are inconsistent, and thus require courts to determine which types of speech ought to be afforded more or less constitutional protection on a case-by-case basis. This Note discusses these issues and how they are exacerbated in the twenty-first century. It then proposes a statute-based, bright-line approach to protect privacy with minimal intrusion on the press while simultaneously providing more notice and guidance.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:19 PDT
  • Olympians as Laborers: How Unionizing Can Help Athletes Bargain for
           Compensation and Better Structural Support

    • Authors: Sherif Farrag
      Abstract: Team USA athletes suffer poor structural support and inadequate compensation despite constituting irreplaceable labor for the multi-billion-dollar Olympic sports industry. This poor support is evident in recent complaints made by Olympic stars of the poor mental health support provided by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee and in its failure to prevent nearly two decades of sexual abuse perpetrated on USA Gymnastics gymnasts. The inadequate compensation is apparent as athletes continue to receive no wages for their participation in the Olympics or Olympic-sanctioned events, generally struggle financially, and face restrictions on licensing their name, image, and likeness to partners during the Olympics. Theoretically, athletes can challenge some of these problems through antitrust or employment law claims. However, relevant case law makes those paths difficult, at best. Several circuits have found an antitrust exemption for the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee and similarly situated National Collegiate Athletic Associate athletes have failed thus far to hold the Association liable for wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The best path athletes can take to improve their lot comprehensively and holistically is labor law. Unionization can empower athletes to directly negotiate with the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee in search of better structural support and adequate wages. The unionization process, however, will most likely result in athletes of many, but not all, sports gaining the ability to unionize. Others will fail to qualify as employees under the National Labor Relations Act or will be exempt as “independent contractors.” Nonetheless, labor law is the most appropriate and efficient way to improve the lot of Team USA athletes as they pursue their dreams.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:16 PDT
  • The Public Square Has Eyes (or Cameras): Anonymous Speech Under the First
           and Fourth Amendments in the Age of Facial Recognition

    • Authors: Apratim Vidyarthi
      Abstract: Facial recognition technology (“FRT”)—once a futuristic fantasy—is more pervasive than ever and shows no signs of becoming less prevalent. While this technology has its upsides, it elicits the notion of an omnipresent being that is watching and tracking us all the time. FRTs encroach on the First Amendment right to anonymous speech by revealing the identity of speakers and chilling speech. Yet, First Amendment doctrine does not provide much solace, since the right to anonymous speech regulates the government’s ability to force disclosure of a speaker’s identity rather than preventing it from collecting publicly available facial data. The right to anonymous speech also clashes with private actors’ right to collect and disseminate information, which provides an avenue for private actors to destroy anonymity. And private actors’ First Amendment rights allow them to collect and develop FRT they can use in private spaces.In addition to inadequate speech rights, litigating FRTs’ impacts on the right to anonymous speech is likely to face significant barriers in court. Specifically, plaintiffs will find it hard to show they have been affected by these systems and that their speech has been chilled, giving them no standing. Further, courts’ deference to the legislative and executive branches on issues of crime control and national security might justify an encroachment on the right to anonymous speech. Finally, private parties’ rights to collect and disseminate information pose serious barriers to challenge privately-operated FRTs and provides the government an additional avenue to gather facial data and track individuals. Prophylactic legislation is a stronger solution to remedy the issues caused by FRT. Such legislation can regulate the government’s use of FRT, private actors’ implementations of FRT, and the very creation of FRTs themselves.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:14 PDT
  • Graffiti on Cities’ Forgotten Landscapes: An Application of Adverse
           Possession Law to the Visual Artists Rights Act

    • Authors: Minelli E. Manoukian
      Abstract: Artists use any surface available to them as a canvas. There is the common: cloth and paper; the modern: skin; and even the illegal: buildings and privately-owned property. However, today, the cultural value that artwork instills in its community has grown, regardless of its legal status. Examples can be found in artwork created by graffiti artist Banksy, or even the urban installations of Tyree Guyton, creator of the Heidelberg Project in Detroit. Artists create masterpieces placed in plain sight that enrich the surrounding communities but often interfere with others’ property rights. However, the illegal or encroaching nature of the artwork makes it vulnerable to destruction just as often as it brings it fame. What if the hard work that artists put into creating their urban artwork was not in vain' What if there was a way artists could consistently protect artistic moral rights against the property rights of building owners who have abandoned any upkeep or maintenance on the building, or who have not seen the building in years'
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:11 PDT
  • Speak Out: Verifying and Unmasking Cryptocurrency User Identity

    • Authors: Hadar Y. Jabotinsky et al.
      Abstract: Terror attacks pose a serious threat to public safety and national security. New technologies assist these attacks, magnify them, and render them deadlier. The more funding terrorist organizations manage to raise, the greater their capacity to recruit members, organize, and commit terror attacks. Since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, law enforcement agencies have increased their efforts to develop more anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulations, which are designed to block the flow of financing of terrorism and cut off its oxygen. However, at present, most regulatory measures focus on traditional currencies. As these restrictions become more successful, the likelihood that cryptocurrencies will be used as an alternative to fund illicit behaviors grows. Furthermore, the COVID-19 virus and subsequent social distancing guidelines have increased the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering, material support to terror, and other financial crimes.Cryptocurrencies are a game-changer, significantly affecting market functions like never before and making it easier to finance terrorism and other types of criminal activity. These decentralized and (usually) anonymous currencies facilitate a high volume of transactions, allowing terrorists to engage in extensive fundraising, management, transfer, and spending for illegal activities. As cryptocurrencies gain popularity, the issue of regulating them becomes more urgent. This Article proposes to reform cryptocurrency regulation. It advocates for mandatory obligations directed at cryptocurrency issuers, wallet providers, and exchanges to verify the identity of users on the blockchain. Thus, courts could grant warrants obligating cryptocurrency-issuing companies to unmask the identity of cryptocurrency users when there is probable cause that their activities support terrorism or other money laundering schemes. Such reforms would stifle terrorism and other types of criminal activity financed through cryptocurrencies, curbing harmful activities and promoting national security. In recognition of the legal challenges this solution poses, this Article also addresses substantial objections that might be raised regarding the proposed reforms, such as innovation concerns, First Amendment arguments, and Fourth Amendment protections. It concludes by addressing measures to efficiently promote application of the proposed reforms.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:09 PDT
  • Laws in Conversation: What the First Amendment Can Teach Us About Section

    • Authors: Haley Griffin
      Abstract: As the law surrounding regulation of online intermediaries developed, the First Amendment and Section 230 emerged as two central players. Though different bodies of law, their jurisprudence intersects at several points: both display procedural interactions, implicate free speech concerns, apply to intermediaries engaged in publisher and editorial behaviors, and consider good faith and scienter. However, despite these commonalities, discussion of the First Amendment and Section 230 has largely been siloed.This Note places First Amendment and Section 230 jurisprudence in conversation with one another to determine which specific intermediary behaviors are addressed by each law. Although many cases discuss “traditional editorial functions,” this Note articulates that the First Amendment is relevant in only a limited subset of cases.1 Further, what constitutes a “traditional editorial function” under Section 230 has expanded significantly since the statute was first enacted in 1996, creating a problematic paradox.2In response to the close relationship between the First Amendment and Section 230, this Note proposes courts return their attention to the seminal Section 230 case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. This Note explains how this shift in focus can prevent Section 230’s “traditional editorial” act formulation from swallowing Section 230’s intended scope (taking the First Amendment along with it). It further encourages courts to adopt the four traditional publisher functions identified by the Fourth Circuit in Zeran: publishing, editing, withdrawing from publication, and postponing publishing. Additionally, this Note suggests courts look to First Amendment law concerning editorial judgements to elucidate and characterize truly “traditional” editorial functions.
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:38 PST
  • The Ship of Theseus: The Lanham Act, Chanel and the Secondhand Luxury
           Goods Market

    • Authors: Julie Tamerler
      Abstract: The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phale- reus, for they took away the old planks as they de- cayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing ex- ample among the philosophers, for the logical ques- tion of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same. – Plutarch1
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:35 PST
  • Based on a True Story: The Ever-Expanding Progeny of Rogers v. Grimaldi

    • Authors: Zachary Shufro
      Abstract: Trademark law limits the extent and manner to which individuals can use a surprisingly large percentage of common words in the English language. Indeed, as one empirical study of trademark registrations revealed, “when we use our language, nearly three-quarters of the time we are using a word that someone has claimed as a trademark.” Because trademark law grants a negative right to the mark-holder—that is to say, a right to prevent others from using that trademarked word in certain manners and contexts—it inherently conflicts with the First Amendment. In assessing the resulting discord from such a conflict, courts have several measures to determine the metes and bounds of the First Amendment’s priority over trademark law. In the case of an expressive or artistic work which uses the trademark of another (or the name of an individual), one such test that has developed is the Rogers test, named for a 1989 lawsuit involving the actress and dancer Ginger Rogers. Over the past thirty years, this test has outgrown the relatively narrow confines in which it was originally envisioned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and particularly in the Ninth Circuit, its progeny has taken on a life of its own. This Article examines the most recent development in the ever-expanding ambit of the Rogers test: the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. As one Ninth Circuit panel stated in a recent opinion, “[i]t is said that bad facts make bad law”;1 however, VIP Products proves that the inverse can also be true, and that bad legal analysis can defeat a strong factual scenario. The implications of this decision in future cases remains unclear, but this Article considers the pernicious consequences of an even-broader application of the Rogers test in the Ninth Circuit moving forward.
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:32 PST
  • Culture and Fair Use

    • Authors: Michael P. Goodyear
      Abstract: The intersections of race and copyright have been underexamined in legal scholarship, despite repeated calls for further scrutiny. The scholarship has so far focused primarily on identifying where copyright has fallen short in protecting the creative works of artists of color. This Article, instead, hopes to offer one viable solution for creating more inclusivity of different cultures in copyright: the approval of cultural adaptations under fair use.Cultural adaptations—the transformation of preexisting works to reflect the cultural and social mores and norms of a different group—would appear at first glance to be prohibited as derivative works, which, under the Copyright Act, can only be created by copyright owners. A culture-centered approach to fair use, however, offers the possibility of permitting at least certain cultural adaptations. While this question would be one of first impression for courts, cultural adaptations can—and should—be understood to constitute fair use. Cultural adaptations comment on and transform the original work by recontextualizing it for different cultural markets. In addition, permitting cultural adaptations advances the goal of copyright and the public policy goal of diversity in expression and representation by fostering the creation of more works, and especially more works for and by minority artists.
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:29 PST
  • IP Interrupted: Diverse Voices in Intellectual Property

    • Authors: Fordham IPLJ
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:26 PST
  • Bringing Clout to the Masses: An In-Depth Look at the “Legal
           Fake” Phenomenon

    • Authors: Nicole Kim
      Abstract: A snaking line of customers that wraps around the block leading to a minimalist, yet iconoclastic store can only mean one thing: drop day. Rain or shine, devoted fans of brands such as Supreme, Palace, and Off-White, among others, are willing to spend their time and money for the opportunity to cop the latest and most exclusive items. In recent years, the rise of streetwear has projected once-underground skater labels to the forefront of youth culture, mainstream society, and high fashion. Not only has this movement affected niche designers and traditional luxury names, but streetwear has also reshaped the consumer experience. However, the continued evolution and globalization of fashion, fueled by the near-instantaneous speed of the internet and social media, has brought the seemingly novel issue of legal fakes to the forefront. In reality, legal fakes are a face- lifted version of counterfeiting and traditional trademark squatting. By “legally” registering a stolen trademark, impostor companies run their entire business under the guise of a well-known brand. To address this threat, this Note examines the intricacies of a typical legal fake scheme, from its shady origins, to widespread distribution of fake products, to its eventual demise in litigation. This Note further proposes a solution requiring multinational cooperation in order to seal the cracks in international trademark law through which legal fakes have slipped.
      PubDate: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 05:54:48 PST
  • Cartouches, Catalogs, & Courtrooms: Using a Recent Legal Challenge in
           Egyptian Court to Examine Unanswered Questions in Cultural Heritage

    • Authors: Lawrence Keating
      Abstract: Ancient Egypt is known to the world for its rich culture steeped in arcane mysticism and for the dazzling treasures it left behind, which now populate the world’s most prominent cultural institutions. These and other cultural heritage objects, which capture and inspire masses as easily today as they did in their own time, are subject to growing controversy over their protection and utilization. As this debate moves from academic circles to the arena of public discourse, the need to revise legislation controlling cultural heritage objects is becoming increasingly clear. This Note uses a recent law- suit concerning an international exhibition of artifacts from the tomb of King Tutankhamun as a case study to explore this discussion and draw conclusions about how to best serve the aims of cultural heritage law. This Note then recommends adopting the Egyptian government’s approach in amending its patrimony law to provide specialists with increased discretion to manage the wealth of cultural heritage objects under its control.
      PubDate: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 05:54:45 PST
  • The Author and the Other: Reexamining the Doctrine of Joint Authorship in
           Copyright Law

    • Authors: Tehila Rozencwaig-Feldman
      Abstract: Over the years, there has been an increase in the importance and prevalence of the joint authorship doctrine resulting from the internet evolution and globalization processes which allow quick sharing of content and information among various creators from around the world. The collaborations that increased and intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred across a wide variety of creative areas. Today, many types of works such as songs, movies, software, and computer games are created regularly through joint authorship. However, current copyright law regimes relate to this complex and fascinating phenomenon in a limited way, leading to courts’ inconsistent interpretation of the doctrine’s tests.The joint authorship doctrine relies on one primary collaborative model, the “all-or-nothing” model, which conditions the granting of joint authorship on authors making similar contributions to a work. In the beginning of the twenty-first century, the English legal system began recognizing asymmetrical contributions of joint authors and responded by rewarding them proportionally on the basis of each author’s contribution to the work. However, both models ignore other types of contributions, such as those of ideas, participation in mass collaborative models, and the contribution of experts’ technical knowledge. Disregarding these types of contributions may reduce the incentive of creators to collaborate—one of the central challenges of the joint authorship doctrine. This disincentive to collaborate requires reexamination of the joint authorship doctrine. Despite the extensive legal literature suggesting it is essential to comprehensively modify the joint authorship doctrine, there is a great need to introduce a better model for determining joint authorship.This article introduces a new approach to joint authorship, employing theoretical and empirical tools, in an attempt to better address the joint authors’ expectations from the collaborative process and the allocation of rights. The theoretical discussion will include a doctrinal analysis of joint authorship and the different requirements necessary to recognize this doctrine in the English and US legal systems. The empirical portion will explore individuals’ perceptions regarding joint authorship using quantitative tools. For the first time, the empirical research will test the allocation of rights in the “all-or-nothing” model as compared to the “proportional” model. The results demonstrate that a proportional allocation of rights, as sorted by the English legal system, will grant economic rights to joint authors in a greater number of cases. Additionally, the empirical research will show that, in some cases, remuneration should be divided proportionally between joint authors, even when the contribution is not copyrightable, such as with ideas or technical assistance.The primary goal of this Article is to suggest an innovative model that provides a comprehensive normative solution to the challenges raised by existing models of the joint authorship doctrine. In addition, this Article seeks to provide greater certainty regarding the reward distribution among authors within the joint authorship context. Grounded in theoretical and empirical results, this model aspires to provide joint authors with rights and royalties in a proportionate and just manner—namely, by accurately accounting for each author’s contributions to the final work.This model, which is based on a structured scale, will assist courts and joint authors in accurately assigning the relative portion of the work that each author contributed. In general, this scale helps to divide the joint authors’ world into three main categories: the “primary joint author,” the “secondary joint author,” and the “de minimis contributor.” The primary joint author appears at the top of the scale and would be entitled to an equal share of the rights in the joint work. The secondary joint author, whose contribution is copyrightable yet relatively smaller than that of the primary joint authors, should be entitled to a relative share of the rights. Finally, the de minimis contributor, whose contribution is not copyrightable, may be granted only a moral right (credit or acknowledgment) in the joint work.In summary, by focusing on preserving the incentive of joint authors to create collaborative works, this Article aspires to propose a new, innovative model that promotes a distinct and feasible way to allocate joint authorship rights to better reward such authors.
      PubDate: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 05:54:42 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-