In China, there are two criteria in determining whether a property should be protected or not: originality and reproducibility. We must first understand the different nature of Chinese characters. Different calligraphers used different techniques and styles to produce great works of art in many different literary or artistic forms. Because of the more intricate nature of characters and the more number of strokes than in any other character system, Chinese character fonts are very unique for its complex structures. Advanced complexity left more space for artistic creations and variations, which is one of the beauties of the character system, to ancient calligraphers and also requires much “independent and original effort” for typographers that create new Chinese typeface. It is quite obvious that forgery was a tremendous problem in the past and is still is, and many calligraphers and collectors of calligraphy pieces tried to find ways to figure out original pieces and to find methods to show that they really created a piece (QiaoSharon). Common ways to detecting forgeries are: tracing, copying, imitating, hacking, altering, and fabricating (The Palace Museum). I believe that this is analogous to how typeface creators or those who have the right to certain typeface want their typeface to be protected under the Chinese judicial system because of the originality and reproducibility nature of the art. In an era of an overflow of information and easy access to technology, it is
The duration of copyright determines the length of protection. Limitations on this length exist to ensure works enter the public domain. Therefore, the length of protection is one of the most relevant and debated issues regarding copyright law. The proponents and opponents of copyright term extension make compelling arguments, but both sides agree that copyright law should encourage creativity and innovation. If Disney is successful in once again lobbying for an extension of duration, a substantial number of works will fail to enter the public domain in a timely manner. This will, consequently, lead to a stifling of creativity and a suppression of innovation that could be detrimental to progress in the realms of science and the useful arts.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines anti-competitive practices as the many ways firms restrict inter-firm competition to maintain or to increase their relative market position and profits without necessarily providing goods and services at a lower price or at a higher quality. The American Federal Trade Commission states that anti-competitive practices include activities such as price fixing, group boycotts and exclusionary exclusive dealings. These activities are generally grouped as agreements between competitors (horizontal conduct) and monopolization (single firm conduct).
violators. So although some form of a copyright law is needed, the one we have
The copyrightable element of the 1963 image should be covered under American copyright law, but the content of the image, including originality and use that need to be defined. Elements that should be protected include the photograph itself. This includes “selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other carious accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines (Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 45, 48 (4 S.Ct. 1884)).” In the 19th century, this declaration was the first time the question of a photograph’s inherent copyright was explained, and is now a standard in the Copyright Act of 1976, where all “two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, and prints…that can identify separately from the utilitarian aspects.” (17 U.S.C. § 101) are considered pictorial works and protected under copyright.
One of the most common, yet controversial, issues of First Amendment law is the subject of copyright and infringement. Although the subject may not seem major at first, many different issues and controversies have risen and become more common than ever over the years. The issues that have become pertinent to this subject are endless, including trademark infringement, piracy, theft, fraud, plagiarism, and many more. With the coming of age and advancement of technology, these cases have become more common and appear more often than ever before. Government officials have always been strict about copyright rulings, and have tried to deliver fair and just rulings for both parties involved under First Amendment rules. Because the owner’s work and material is protected under the First Amendment, it gets tricky when involving another party that can claim the same work of art. In short, the definition of copyright has always been cut and dry: allowing owners of creative works the right to control and profit from their creations. It is basically recognized as a form of property ownership.
During the mid-1790’s the Constitution had enact a law for a system of copyright for United States of America but actually for United Kingdom or Britain that intellectual property law became a statute in the early 1700’s also known as, “The Statue of Anne”(Feather, 19). However, for England the book was published by an “approved” printer which did
For a long time we have strived to protect what we have made from the hands of those who steal. Nowadays we have a huge problem with infringement and that is due
Copyright is the legal right, to an inventor to perform, print, publish, film, or record artistic, literary, or musical material, and to allow others to do the same. Copyright law was developed to provide the creators and inventors of any works with powerful and effective rights of exclusivity over their creations (Patterson & Lindberg, 1991). Over the past, these rights were almost unlimited. People would use existing developments as if they were their own without any regard of the creator’s exclusive rights. The need to balance and limit such rights arose, and governments established these limits for the general good of the public.
The purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society and protect the creators’ interests. In applying copyright laws to any creation, three basic guidelines apply. First is the fair return for a creators labor, second is “Fair Use” of the creators’ labor and finally the Progress of Science and useful Arts to further the public good. The application of these three guidelines in litigation for A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, found that the rights of reproduction, and distribution had been violated, in effect upholding the copyrights of nineteen different music companies represented under A&M Records name, this ruling had protected the music industries interests. However it would seem that the publishing industry would not be so lucky, litigation in Authors’ Guild vs. Google ruled that Google’s actions constituted fair use. Under these two scenarios’ the copyright laws’ have, effectively, protected the rights of music artists’, protected the public’s right to “fair use” and sparked new opportunities for creative growth. However, lawmakers continue to struggle to define copyright boundaries between the public’s right of use and the creators right to profit from their efforts.
In a Proprietary source, designers only have limited capabilities to alter or make any modifications from what the first designers had set in place, however, having full control gives them a chance to alter the look feel and even elements of the product giving it significantly more conceivable outcomes. In the Case with Apple and the FBI, Apple was taken to court over a locked phone. The FBI tried to force Apple to develop a program that would go against their security protocols to unlock the phone of a terrorist. Apple refused to do so stating that it would open a backdoor and allow for anyone to breach the security of their phones (Cava, Johnson & Swartz, 2016).
The World Intellectual Property Organization (n.d.) helps one understand the importance of protecting intellectual property. They have spelled out several reasons of this importance including inventing new works in technology and culture, which allows progress to be made that, can be utilized worldwide. In addition, the legal protection of intellectual property encourages the commitment of additional resources for further modernization. Finally, promoting and protecting intellectual property encourages economic growth. It creates new jobs and industries. Protecting intellectual property also enhances the quality and
To those who are not familiar with the processes within the fashion industry, this world of style is characterized by a peaceful coexistence between all the stakeholders. To those in the know however, this is far from the truth with the fashion industry. The value of the United Kingdom fashion industry is large contributing to about 20 billion pounds into the country’s economy on an annual basis. To have a better understanding, the contribution made by the fashion industry to the country’s Gross Domestic Product is almost twice that being brought in by car manufacturers which is valued at 10.1 billion so fashion is no doubt a major business and clothing designs one of the core assets. In considering this, it is therefore a surprise that businesses that are operating within this industry within this industry are not given the opportunity to do more to protect the designs that they have. This paper puts forward the assertion that based on the case law of J Choo(Jersey) Limited v Towerstone Limited and Others, the system of intellectual property protection available in United Kingdom law is not fit for use in the fashion industry in its present condition.
There is such a legal concept as "intellectual property". Intellectual property is defined as the creation of any intellectual innovation by an individual such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. The law provides him exclusive rights to this innovation and is strictly against theft or plagiarism in any way. Innovators can safeguard their property by one or more of the following: copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.. Copyrights, patents, and trade secrets are each authored by different Offices. Each is based on the Laws of Commerce. (LII. Intellectual property). Cultural attitudes, in fact, esteem words and knowledge above that of certain other property, since knowledge is something that cannot be as easily duplicated as, for instance, an article of common furniture can. To illustrate the veneration that contemporary society accords intellectual invention, software is more expensive and valuable than hardware sink the
The enduring fascination for people is that they want law to be flexible in the matter of copyright. This was clearly expressed by Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of Consumer Focus quoting "UK copyright law is the oldest, but also the most out of date. Before addressing the question it’s important to look at the history and definition of UK Copyright law. It has grown from this beginning to form the main legal basis for the international publishing industry, which contributes so much to literature, learning and culture not only in the UK but it has crossed different nation’s borders.
Firstly, with laws to protect intellectual properties, it prevent and stop other companies from commercially using the protected intellectual properties in the marketplace, allowing the owner company to control the usage of their original