DOCSLIB.ORG

Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: a TRIPS-Compatible

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: a TRIPS-Compatible Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2005 Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: A TRIPS-Compatible Approach Daniel J. Gervais Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Contracts Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel J. Gervais, Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: A TRIPS-Compatible Approach, 2005 Michigan State Law Review. 137 (2005) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/830 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137 2005 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Jun 4 15:16:16 2012 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. Retrieved from DiscoverArchive, Vanderbilt University’s Institutional Repository This work was originally published in 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137 2005 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: A TRIPS-COMPATIBLE APPROACH Daniel Gervais" 2005 MICH. ST. L. REV. 137 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................ 137 I. TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ...... 140 II. COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS ................................ 149 A. Nature of the Owner ................................ 149 B. Nature of the Object ................................ 151 C. Nature of the Right(s) ............................... 155 D. Term of Protection Issues ............................ 157 I. POSSIBLE WAYS FORWARD IN THE DOHA CONTEXT ........... 160 A. Towards a Declaration on Traditional Knowledge and Trade 160 B. (Draft) Ministerial Declaration on Traditional Knowledge and Trade ............................... 162 1. Text of the Proposed Declaration ................... 162 2. Com m ent ...................................... 163 C. Documentation Issues ............................... 164 D. The Role of Dispute Resolution ....................... 165 CONCLUSION ............................................. 166 INTRODUCTION This paper begins where the latest study commissioned by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)' ends: * Vice-Dean, Research and Professor of Technology Law, Faculty of Law (Common Law), University of Ottawa. Visiting Scholar, Stanford Law School (Spring '04). Former Head of Section, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); and Legal Officer, GATT/WTO. Professor Gervais is the author of THE TRIPS AGREEMENT: DRAFTING HISTORY AND ANALYSIS (2d ed. 2003). The author wishes to thank the editors of the Michigan State Law Review and in particular Joseph J. Gavin for their diligent editing work. The author was the 2004 Trilateral Distinguished Scholar at Michigan State University College of Law. Financial assistance from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Bell University Labs and the Law Foundation of Ontario is gratefully acknowledged. I. Anil K. Gupta, WIPO-UNEPStudy on the Role ofIntellectual PropertyRights in the Sharing of Benefits Arising from the Use of Biological Resources and Traditional Knowledge (2004), available at http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/publications/769euneptk.pdf(last HeinOnline -- 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137 2005 Michigan State Law Review [Vol. 2005:137 IP [should] provide an important means for strengthening the range of incentives that local communities need for conserving genetic resources and associate TK. In fact, IP can also provide incentives for augmenting this knowledge and resource base .... In the absence of adequate mechanisms to provide protection for such efforts, proper incentives are not yet available to encourage more people to pursue such innovations. The ultimate test of any incentive system is whether it can nurture and augment the spirit of experimentation, exploration and sharing, so evident in traditional communities over the years. We need to find ways of ensuring that the value system of many of these communities does not become a reason for their remaining poor, and thus, ultimately, eroding their vitally important knowledge and 2 resource base. The challenges facing us are multiple: First, we need to continue to build, and then cross, a cultural bridge to explain current forms of intellectual property to holders of traditional knowledge. This will achieve a dual objective: we could all benefit from their insights to allow us to work towards improving the intellectual property system to better respond to their needs; it would also allow traditional knowledge holders to reap available benefits from extant forms of protection, including collective and certification marks' and, where possible, patent and copyright protection.4 Tort and contract law may also offer some useful remedies.5 Second, we need to re-examine in depth the current forms of intellectual property. This is an indispensable first step before any new or "sui generis" form of protection is enshrined into a new international instrument.6 Then, if current intellectual property norms are visited Oct. 28, 2004). 2. Id. at 163, Part III. 3. See Daniel J. Gervais, The Internationalization of Intellectual Property: New Challenges from the Very Old and the Very New, 12 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 929, 967-70 (2002); Gupta, supra note 1, at 158-59. 4. See Gupta, supra note 1, at 4-5. 5. See Gervais, supra note 3, at 973-75; Nuno Pires de Carvalho, RequiringDisclosure ofthe Origin of Genetic Resources and PriorInformed Consent in Patent Applications Without Infringing the TRIPSAgreement: The Problem and The Solution, 2 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 37 1, 399 (2000) (suggesting that patent enforcement (rather than grant) be made subject to the disclosure of the origin of genetic material and evidence of informed consent of traditional knowledge holders concerned). With respect to contract law, traditional knowledge holders could negotiate with laboratories and/or pharmaceutical companies to obtain a share of the benefits generated by a product or process developed on the basis of traditional knowledge (about e.g., the medicinal properties of certain plants) without a preexisting intellectual or other statutory right in that knowledge. 6. See WIPO Intergovernmental Commission on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (Revised Version of Traditional Knowledge: Policy and Legal Options), WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/4 (Feb. 19, 2004) [hereinafter WIPO Traditional Knowledge], at 2 1, stating In the judgment of some communities and countries, however, the above-mentioned adaptations of existing IP rights systems may not be fully sufficient to cater to the HeinOnline -- 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 138 2005 Spring] TraditionalKnowledge found to be inappropriate, we may need to consider new international norms, including a sui generis right7 and norms related to environmental protection.Y Against that backdrop, this paper addresses one of the issues in that list, namely to what extent traditional knowledge is commensurate with intellectual property. The Article begins by situating the notion of "traditional knowledge" for the purposes of the paper. It then examines briefly the concept of "intellectual property" to determine the extent to which it can accommodate traditional knowledge protection. In a third part, the Article offers possible avenues to explore how to better protect traditional knowledge holders within the parameters of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") Agreement.' This choice seems reasonable for a number of reasons. First, while one is perfectly free to criticize TRIPS or suggest that it be amended,' ° the prospect and extent of any such modifications are unknown and difficult to predict. In addition, if amendments do happen, they are likely to require several years to negotiate and enter into force. Third, one would have to be an extreme optimist to think that TRIPS will be amended in ways that respond to every need and concern of holders of traditional knowledge. For all these reasons, finding solutions within the confines of the current TRIPS text seems a rational way to proceed-which does not mean that work on rewriting TRIPS is ill-conceived. Both approaches are complementary. One should also bear in mind that traditional holistic and unique character of TK subject matter. The call for sui generis measures generally arises from such perceived shortcomings of conventional IP rights. Id. See Paul J. Heald, Mowing the Playing Field: Addressing Information Distortion and Asymmetry in the TRIPS Game, 88 MINN. L. REv. 249, 271-72 (2003). But see Dan Rosen, A Common Law for the Ages of IntellectualProperty, 38 U. MIAMI L. REV. 769,772 (1984) ("The continuing challenge of intellectual property law is not deciding how to treat new creations that are sui generis. Rather, it is determining whether a new thing is like an old. Put another way, it is the classic problem of the common law: treating like cases alike."). See also Gervais, supra note 3, at 970-73. 7. See
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beyond Authorship Refiguring Rights in Traditional Culture and Bioknowledge
    Beyond Authorship Refiguring Rights in Traditional Culture and Bioknowledge Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi An “author” in the modern sense is the creator of unique literary, or artistic, “works” the originality of which warrants their protection under laws of intellectual property -- Anglo American “copyright” and European “authors’ rights.” This notion is so firmly established that it persists and flourishes even in the face of contrary experience. Experience tells us that our creative practices are largely derivative, generally collective, and increasingly corporate and collaborative. Yet we nevertheless tend to think of genuine authorship as solitary and originary. This individualistic construction of authorship is a relatively recent invention, the result of a radical reconceptualization of the creative process that culminated less than two centuries ago in the heroic self-presentation of Romantic poets. In the view of poets from Herder and Goethe to Wordsworth and Coleridge genuine authorship is originary in the sense that it results not in a variation, an imitation, or an adaptation, and certainly not in a mere reproduction, but in a new, unique -- in a word, “original” -- work which, accordingly, may be said to be the property of its creator and to merit the law’s protection as such.1 With its emphasis on originality and self-declaring creative genius, this notion of authorship has functioned to marginalize or deny the work of many creative people: women, non-Europeans, artists working in traditional forms and genres, and individuals engaged in group or collaborative projects, to name but a few. Exposure of these exclusions -- the recovery of marginalized creators and underappreciated forms of creative production -- has been a central occupation of cultural studies for several 1 See Martha Woodmansee, “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author’”; rpt.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Rights – II
    KLE LAW ACADEMY BELAGAVI (Constituent Colleges: KLE Society’s Law College, Bengaluru, Gurusiddappa Kotambri Law College, Hubballi, S.A. Manvi Law College, Gadag, KLE Society’s B.V. Bellad Law College, Belagavi, KLE Law College, Chikodi, and KLE College of Law, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai) STUDY MATERIAL for IPR II Prepared as per the syllabus prescribed by Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), Hubballi Compiled by Dundappa B. Solapure, Principal K.L.E.Society's Law College, Chikodi This study material is intended to be used as supplementary material to the online classes and recorded video lectures. It is prepared for the sole purpose of guiding the students in preparation for their examinations. Utmost care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the content. However, it is stressed that this material is not meant to be used as a replacement for textbooks or commentaries on the subject. This is a compilation and the authors take no credit for the originality of the content. Acknowledgement, wherever due, has been provided. Course –III: Optional –V Intellectual Property Rights – II Study Materials on Intellectual Property Rights – II Objectives: Intellectual Property law has assumed great importance in recent times as a result of the recognition that “knowledge is property”. The creations of the human brain as IP Legislations are required to be understood and protected. The syllabus encompassing all relevant IP Legislations in India with a view to understand and adjust with changing needs of the society because creative works useful to society and law relating to innovation/creativity i.e. Intellectual Property is one of the fastest growing subjects all over the globe because of its significance and importance in the present era.
    [Show full text]
  • The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 20 Volume XX Number 1 Volume XX Book 1 Article 2 2009 Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law Michael D. Birnhack Tel-Aviv University Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael D. Birnhack, Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law, 20 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 95 (2009). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol20/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law Cover Page Footnote Thanks to Maurizio Borghi, Hanoch Dagan, Guy Davidov, Niva Elkin-Koren, Edo Eshet, Orit Fischman Afori, Oren Gazal-Ayal, Assaf Jacob, Ariel Katz, Wen Li, Orly Lobel, Guy Mundlak, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Guy Pessach, Alessandra Rossi, and participants at the Third Workshop on the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property at Queen Mary University of London (July 2007), the annual congress of the Society for Economic Research on Copyright Issues (SERCI) in Berlin (July 2007), the 4-Sided Workshop on Law & Economics (Rome, 2009) and the 9th Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Cardozo Law School (August 2009), especially Pamela Samuelson and Rebecca Tushnet, for helpful comments and to Dorit Garfunkel, Nir Servatka and Barak Tevet for able research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Work for Hire: Revision on the Horizon
    *21 Copyright 1989 by the PTC Research Foundation of the Franklin Pierce Law Center IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 1989 WORK FOR HIRE: REVISION ON THE HORIZON Michael Carter Smith [n.a] INTRODUCTION The Copyright Act of 1976 ('76 Act) [n.1] became effective a decade ago. [n.2] The '76 Act contained new and controversial "work for hire" provisions. [n.3] As thousands of employment agreements involve work for hire, [n.4] the ramifications of this perplexing doctrine are worthy of consideration. The work for hire provisions of the '76 Act [n.5] represent a deliberate attempt by Congress to apportion copyright entitlements in such a way as to appease both ''employers/buyers" and "employees/sellers" of copyrightable works. [n.6] The compromise embodied in the doctrine has proven to be highly problematic: "employers/buyers," "employees/sellers" and the courts have been vexed by the doctrine's vague language. [n.7] The confusion generated by the work for hire provisions of the '76 Act has gone largely unheeded by Congress. However, Senator Cochran (R-Miss.), the Ralph Nader of the work for hire doctrine, has proposed numerous work for hire amendments. [n.8] Despite the support of the 100,000 member *22 Copyright Justice Coalition, Mr. Cochran's proposed amendments have failed to garner allies in the Senate. Whatever the reason for his lack of success, the contradictory judicial interpretations of the doctrine necessitate a congressional remedy. In this paper I will attempt to provoke congressional reconsideration of the work for hire doctrine. First, I will present the doctrine and its underlying policy considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Circular 1: Copyright Basics
    w 1 Copyright Basics What Is Copyright? Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: • reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords • prepare derivative works based upon the work • distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending • perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audio­ visual works • display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work • perform the work publicly (in the case of sound recordings*) by means of a digital audio transmission In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribu­ tion and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, see Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in Circular Circular scope.
    [Show full text]
  • US Copyright, Patent and Trademark Law
    An Outline of US Copyright, Patent and Trademark Law Edition 1.0 5th March 2006 From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection ''Note: current parts of this book can be found at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ US_Copyright_Law http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ US_Patent_Law http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Trademark_Law '' AUTHORS ...................................................................................................................................................................2 US COPYRIGHT LAW..................................................................................................................................................3 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................3 Copyrightable works..............................................................................................................................................3 Formalities.............................................................................................................................................................5 Rights.....................................................................................................................................................................6 Infringement and other offenses ............................................................................................................................7 US PATENT LAW......................................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • The Trans-Pacific Partnership
    OCTOBER 2016 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: COPYRIGHT LAW, THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES, AND INTERNET FREEDOM DR MATTHEW RIMMER PROFESSOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION LAW FACULTY OF LAW QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Queensland University of Technology 1 Executive Summary This submission provides a critical analysis of the copyright sections of Chapter 18 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on intellectual property. In National Interest Analysis, the Australian Government asserts that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a merely recapitulation of existing agreements: The TPP Intellectual Property Chapter is consistent with Australia’s existing intellectual property regime and will not require any changes to Australia’s legislation. Minor regulatory changes relating to encoded broadcasts will be required to extend to Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam and New Zealand the benefits in Part VAA of the Copyright Act 1968 that Australia already extends to parties to the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations 1961 (the Rome Convention). The TPP does not require an increase in the term of copyright protection in Australia, nor any other changes to Australia’s copyright regime, including with respect to technological protection measures. The TPP standard with respect to ISPs is consistent with Australia’s existing ISP liability regime and will not require ISPs to monitor, report or penalise copyright infringement. However, such an assertion is not well-founded. A close examination of the Trans-Pacific Partnership reveals that the agreement has obligations above and beyond existing agreements – such as the TRIPS Agreement 1994 and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • I Infringed Again: an Analysis of U.S
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Student Theses Baruch College Spring 4-30-2018 Oops!... I Infringed Again: An Analysis of U.S. Copyright and its Intended Beneficiaries Gabriele A. Forbes-Bennett CUNY Bernard M Baruch College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/bb_etds/79 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] 1 Oops!... I Infringed Again: An Analysis of U.S. Copyright and its Intended Beneficiaries Gabriele Forbes-Bennett 30 April 2018 Submitted to the Committee on Undergraduate Honors at Baruch College of the City University of New York in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and the Management of Musical Enterprises with Honors Professor Elizabeth Wollman, Honors Faculty Sponsor ____________________ Professor Marc Edelman, Signatory ____________________ Professor Donna Gitter, Signatory ____________________ 2 Table of Contents 1. Abstract 4 2. Why was the law created? 5 a. What were the original terms? Where did they come from? 5 3. The 1831 Amendment 6 4. The purpose of the law begins to change 8 5. The 1971 Amendment 11 6. The 1976 Act 14 a. The Berne Convention 15 b. The Buenos Aires Convention 16 c. The Universal Copyright Convention 17 7. What sets the 1976 Act apart? 18 a. The length of copyright protection 18 b. Copyright Registration 19 c. Qualifications for copyright protection 21 d.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Theories: Intellectual Property Dynamics in the Global Knowledge Economy
    WAKE FOREST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 9 2008 - 2009 NUMBER 2 BEYOND THEORIES : INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DYNAMICS IN THE GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY CHIDI OGUAMANAM * ABSTRACT This Article critically examines the inadequacy of theoretical postulates on intellectual property. It acknowledges that theorizing around intellectual property is an important ongoing but elusive intellectual adventure that is critical for law and policy direction on intellectual property. Perhaps, at no time is this fact more obvious than in the extant post-industrial epoch or the era of Global Knowledge Economy (“GKE”). The latter is spurred by advances in bio- and digital technologies. Both phenomena drive significant shift and transition in intellectual property jurisprudence and in the tide of innovation from physical to life sciences. They also supervise implosions in new and complex domains or sites for knowledge and information generation. As its feature, the global knowledge economic order is undergirded by an institutional and structural shift in international intellectual property lawmaking and governance, provoking a serendipitous counter-regime dynamic in diverse sites for contestations around intellectual property. The pivotal role of intellectual property in the GKE presents intellectual property as an increasingly multidisciplinary subject with complex issue linkages in virtually all fronts, including public health, human rights, biodiversity, biotechnology, biopiracy, the environment, ethics, culture, indigenous knowledge, electronic commerce, and research ethos. Overall, these and many more issue linkages to intellectual property are part of the latter’s open-ended dynamics in the GKE. They are constitutive of a myriad of factors that task and shape policy and theory on intellectual property as the knowledge economy continues to unravel.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking with a Forked Tongue in the Global Debate on Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources: Is U.S
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 15 Volume XV Number 1 Volume XV Book 1 Article 1 2004 Speaking with a Forked Tongue in the Global Debate on Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources: Is U.S. Intellectual Property Law and Policy Really Aimed at Meaningful Protection for Native American Cultures? Nancy Kremers Adjunct Professor, The George Washington University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Nancy Kremers, Speaking with a Forked Tongue in the Global Debate on Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources: Is U.S. Intellectual Property Law and Policy Really Aimed at Meaningful Protection for Native American Cultures?, 15 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1 (2004). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol15/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KREMERS FORMAT 1/25/2005 6:10 PM ARTICLE Speaking with a Forked Tongue in the Global Debate on Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources: Is U.S. Intellectual Property Law and Policy Really Aimed at Meaningful Protection for Native American Cultures? Nancy Kremers∗† INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 3 I. AN OVERVIEW: WHAT IS TKGRF, HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE TKGRF-RELATED LEGAL CONTROVERSIES AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE ARISEN IN RECENT YEARS? ............
    [Show full text]
  • How the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Bars Fair Use of Digitally Stored Copyrighted Works
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 16 Issue 3 Volume 16, Fall 2002, Issue 3 Article 11 Fair Use No Longer: How the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Bars Fair Use of Digitally Stored Copyrighted Works Denis T. Brogan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES FAIR USE NO LONGER: HOW THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT BARS FAIR USE OF DIGITALLY STORED COPYRIGHTED WORKS DENIS T. BROGAN INTRODUCTION The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to confer upon authors an exclusive right to their writings for limited times.' This exclusive right, however, is further limited 1 U.S. CONST. art I, § 8, cl. 8 (stating interests of copyright to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. .'). See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984) (asserting that copyright achieves important public purpose and intended to motivate creative activity of authors and inventors through rewards, yet allows public access after limited period of exclusive 692 ST JOHN'S JOURIAL OFLEGAL COMMENTARY [Vol. 16:691 by the "fair use" exception to copyright protection. 2 Originally a judge-made doctrine, 3 the doctrine of fair use is now codified under § 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History Of'copyright in the West, in the Ottoman Empire and in Turkey
    Türk Kütüphaneciliği 28, 4 (2014), 638-644 A Short History of'Copyright in the West, in the Ottoman Empire and in Turkey Batı Dünyası, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Türkiye’de Telif Hakları Tarihçesi Nadide Güher Erer* Abstract The legal regulations concerning copyright came into existence as a result of certain historical developments. One of 'the most important agents in the historical process of copyright was the introduction of printing press. The advent of the printing press, which has been a magnetic topic in the discussions about the “history of the book”, played a crucial role in the development of copyright on the global scale. Therefore, in order to understand the historical process, it would be worthwhile to look at the evolution of copyright in Europe, in the Ottoman Empire and finally in Turkey. Keywords: Copyright; printing press; Europe; Ottoman Empire; Turkey. Öz Telif hakları ile ilgili yasal düzenlemeler bazı tarihi olaylar sonucunda ortaya çıkmıştır. Telif haklarının tarihi gelişiminde en önemli etkenlerden birisi matbaanın bulunması olmuştur ‘Kitabın tarihçesi’ ile ilgili tartışmalarda çekici bir konu olan matbaa, uluslararası arenada telif haklarının gelişmesinde çok önemli bir rol oynamıştır. Bu sebeple telif haklarının geçirdiği tarihsel süreci anlamak için, bu sürecin gelişimini Avrupa, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Türkiye ekseninde ele almak uygun olacaktır. Anahtar Sözcükler: Telif hakları; matbaa; Avrupa; Osmanlı İmparatorluğu; Türkiye. History of Copyright Today’s copyright laws are the result of certain social events that took place throughout the history. It is generally acknowledged that the history of copyright starts with the introduction of the printing press. In the ancient times or middle ages the concept of copyright did not yet take shape, although there were certain regulations even before the concept of copyright emerged.
    [Show full text]