Comments for What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property

Lilly Halasz + Njilan Tondeur
The IPL guarantees exclusive rights on the “mind production”. It is necessary in a society, because each creator has to have a right and a protection on his invention. If people wouldn’t be sure that their intellectual inventions are protected , they would keep their inventions for them or secret. Nobody wants his idea to be stolen by someone else.…
Read more

The IPL guarantees exclusive rights on the “mind production”. It is necessary in a society, because each creator has to have a right and a protection on his invention. If people wouldn’t be sure that their intellectual inventions are protected , they would keep their inventions for them or secret. Nobody wants his idea to be stolen by someone else. We can take for example, paintings wouldn’t have the same value if there wasn’t a IPL, because it could be the production of everyone and not a specific person.

The fact that IPL exists permit to the science to evolve because people will be more keen to share their ideas and scientific discovery, and also in a lot of other fields.
The patent law is very useful and important for the creator, because it guarantees a property right on his invention during 20 years. When you invent or discover something, and you have a IPL on it, you earn money when somebody uses it.

The IPL sets also the business apart from competitors and guarantees a real security. IPL il a protection against the infringement by other and you can even go to the court to defend your rights.

Show less
Reply
AKSOYEK Tom, BARAZZONI Antoine, BRUTOUX Léo, LAURANT Franck-Victor
What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property In this cartoon, we can see both one of the main rationale of Intellectual Property Law and a critic -quite an ironic one- of its main rationale...  While creating Intellectual Property Law, the Legislator wanted to give incentive to the inventors/authors and therefore encourage innovation. Art is created…
Read more

What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property

In this cartoon, we can see both one of the main rationale of Intellectual Property Law and a critic -quite an ironic one- of its main rationale… 
While creating Intellectual Property Law, the Legislator wanted to give incentive to the inventors/authors and therefore encourage innovation. Art is created partly because the author of the artistic work can be rewarded, thanks to the copyright law, meaning that other people cannot copy that same work without approval of the author. Inventors were therefore rewarded by gaining exclusivity on their inventions.
Some rationale is opposite to Competition Law for example. While Competition regulations tend to reduce exclusivity and monopoly by advocating for a free market in which everybody can enjoy inventions, Intellectual Property law tends to encourage innovation and protect authors/inventors.

Nevertheless, Intellectual Property Law might have some flaws, according to naysayers. First of all, is IP Law really indispensable to give incentive to encourage creation/production ? Is it really necessary to give exclusive rights and is it fair and proportional to the profits earned by the authors ? Intellectual Property Law has always been seen as an economic tool for growth in a tradiational point of view, but are those advantages of IP Law really essential for the creators and for the functioning of our society ?

Furthermore, in the first picture, we can see “Without copyright law – art would not exist”, and there arises one of the biggest critics of IP Law… Art would definitely still exist without copyright law. Michelangelo still painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling while the origins of intellectual property law date from only few centuries later. In the same way, the second picture takes the same turn because inventions would still have existed without patent law. 

In the last picture, the author makes an analogy from patent and copyright law to marriage and real estate law. And contrary to copyright law and patent law, land would still exist even without real estate law and love would still exist even without marriage law. In this way, intellectual property is a human invention and would not have existed without the intervention of the Legislator.  

In conclusion, these three pictures are similar in some way and converge to one single conclusion : Law does not create Art, Inventions, Land and certainly not Love, it should only be here to regulate those areas, and benefit to everyone who plays a part in one of them.

Show less
Reply
BARAZZONI ANTOINE
What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property In this cartoon, we can see both one of the main rationale of Intellectual Property Law and a critic -quite an ironic one- of its main rationale...  While creating Intellectual Property Law, the Legislator wanted to give incentive to the inventors/authors and therefore encourage innovation. Art is created…
Read more

What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property

In this cartoon, we can see both one of the main rationale of Intellectual Property Law and a critic -quite an ironic one- of its main rationale… 
While creating Intellectual Property Law, the Legislator wanted to give incentive to the inventors/authors and therefore encourage innovation. Art is created partly because the author of the artistic work can be rewarded, thanks to the copyright law, meaning that other people cannot copy that same work without approval of the author. Inventors were therefore rewarded by gaining exclusivity on their inventions.
Some rationale is opposite to Competition Law for example. While Competition regulations tend to reduce exclusivity and monopoly by advocating for a free market in which everybody can enjoy inventions, Intellectual Property law tends to encourage innovation and protect authors/inventors.

Nevertheless, Intellectual Property Law might have some flaws, according to naysayers. First of all, is IP Law really indispensable to give incentive to encourage creation/production ? Is it really necessary to give exclusive rights and is it fair and proportional to the profits earned by the authors ? Intellectual Property Law has always been seen as an economic tool for growth in a tradiational point of view, but are those advantages of IP Law really essential for the creators and for the functioning of our society ?

Furthermore, in the first picture, we can see “Without copyright law – art would not exist”, and there arises one of the biggest critics of IP Law… Art would definitely still exist without copyright law. Michelangelo still painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling while the origins of intellectual property law date from only few centuries later. In the same way, the second picture takes the same turn because inventions would still have existed without patent law. 

In the last picture, the author makes an analogy from patent and copyright law to marriage and real estate law. And contrary to copyright law and patent law, land would still exist even without real estate law and love would still exist even without marriage law. In this way, intellectual property is a human invention and would not have existed without the intervention of the Legislator.  

In conclusion, these three pictures are similar in some way and converge to one single conclusion : Law does not create Art, Inventions, Land and certainly not Love, it should only be here to regulate those areas, and benefit to everyone who plays a part in one of them.

AKSOYEK Tom
BARAZZONI Antoine
BRUTOUX Léo
LAURANT Franck-Victor

Show less
Reply
ERREDDADI ASSIA- Ndri MARIE - GODIN Nathan (IPL)
This cartoon says that without copyright law, art would not exist. The intellectual property law is the key of the existence of art and other forms of creation. It means that the law of intellectual property defines art. In this cartoon, it's clearly said that the copyright permits the existence of art. This cartoon could mean that every types of law creates something.…
Read more

This cartoon says that without copyright law, art would not exist.
The intellectual property law is the key of the existence of art and other forms of creation.
It means that the law of intellectual property defines art.
In this cartoon, it’s clearly said that the copyright permits the existence of art.
This cartoon could mean that every types of law creates something. For example, it says that without marriage law, love wouldn’t exist. The author of this cartoon tries to show us that everything that we consider banal is actually created by the law.
The copyright law and all laws of the intellectual property law protect the author, the creator and their creations from thieves. It permits to own legally what you created against the entire world by recognizing you as the owner of the creation.
It goes the same for the inventions, patent law permet their existence; for land, real estate law give the right to claim to own our lands.
For the actor copying actually an act of love because it means that when you copy something, you show that this work is worth.

Show less
Reply
Lisa Mailleux, Meryl Culot, Giulia de Pascale, Sophie Merckx
There are a few traditional justifications for intellectual property rights such as moral and economic reasons. Concerning the moral justification, through the small cartoons, the authors want to make us realize that without copyright or patents, people would be reluctant to create inventions or to make art. Because they see it as the fruit of their labour, it seems fair…
Read more

There are a few traditional justifications for intellectual property rights such as moral and economic reasons.

Concerning the moral justification, through the small cartoons, the authors want to make us realize that without copyright or patents, people would be reluctant to create inventions or to make art. Because they see it as the fruit of their labour, it seems fair that what people create sort of belongs to them and that only them receive credit for it. Indeed, one consequence of the technological advances is that anything is now shareable anywhere.

About the economic justification, intellectual property rights exists as a mean to boost productivity. The monopoly created by those rights is an incentive for artists to enhance their productivity. The temporary aspect of the monopoly rewards the original creator of the product but also allows others to draw inspiration from it. It is also a guarantee for the creators that no one will steal their work and be rewarded for it.

The cartoon kind of discredits the idea that without intellectual property rights there wouldn’t be creation. Actually, art and inventions exist even without intellectual property law which has been created to regulate those inventions. In our State of Law, where every segment of the society is regulated by the law, it would make sense that the ideas and creativity that lead to the art or inventions would also be protected by the law. Indeed, if ownership or possession of material goods are regulated by the law, why would not immaterial things, here known as intellectual property, be protected ? So it is not because Intellectual Property Law exists that creations develop, but it is to protect those creations that Intellectual Property Law has been elaborated and because people are more tempted to create inventions or to make art if they know that the law will protect their creations.

The cartoon also entails that copying is a part of art and the creative process. Furthermore artists and creators have always used the work of others as an inspiration, copying isn’t necessarily a bad thing or the appropriation of the others’ work.

As we explained, Intellectual Property Law is a very important tool, protecting creators’ work in a way to reward and boost their labour. Anyway, it should not be forgotten that inspiration, and in a more extensive view, the act of copying other creators’ work is part of the creation process and thus should not be prohibited too severely. Pieces of art are always somehow inspired by others and they should not be perceived as invalid for the only reason it has already been thought of by someone else.

Show less
Reply
Camille Von Croy and Pauline Boudringhien
Intellectual property law enables people to express themselves, invent, create and develop their own ideas without anybody else stealing their ideas. It allows creative and inventive people to create and add value to their own creations. Without copyright law, art would not exist because everybody would take credit for the drawing, painting, sculpture… of someone else. Art is highly based…
Read more

Intellectual property law enables people to express themselves, invent, create and develop their own ideas without anybody else stealing their ideas. It allows creative and inventive people to create and add value to their own creations.

Without copyright law, art would not exist because everybody would take credit for the drawing, painting, sculpture… of someone else. Art is highly based on the name of the person who has make the painting or drawing. Therefore, it would hold no value if it wasn’t copyrighted because everybody could take credit for it. For example, a painting of Picasso has a very high market value whereas a painting of an unknown painter has a poor value. You will pay a lot of money for a painting of Picasso because he is well known and has a name in the artistic community. If everybody was allowed to copy its paintings, the original ones wouldn’t hols any value. This applies to every form of art.

Without patent law, inventions would not exist. If patent law didn’t exist, the word invention itself would not exist. Invention can be defined as the act or process of inventing. If patent law didn’t exist nobody would be inventing anything because everyone would take credit for it. It would be impossible to decipher the exact/original inventor. Therefore, nobody would invent anything because the first, original inventor wouldn’t be known. Also, it might be dangerous because inventions are usually controlled carefully in order to see if they are safe for continuous use. If random inventions were sprung on the market it would be very difficult to control their effectiveness and safeness. Dishonest people could also do a poor copy of the inventions and sell them at a high price while advertising them as a good quality invention.

Without real estate law, land would not exist. If real estate law didn’t exist everybody would claim the land of everybody. It would be impossible to know which land belongs to who. Real estate law enables people to live in harmony. Everyone has its own land to live on and can technically do everything he wants to and on it in respect to laws. Also restrictions have been implemented to land in order to have harmony between the land: you can’t build a house with seven floors because it will completely block your neighbour’s view. Real estate law has also allowed to categorize land into different categories: one land can be land to build whereas another can’t be built on and has to be kept full of its plants and trees because it’s considered an environmental land.

Without marriage law, love would not exist. We disagree on this one because we think love is not based on marriage. You can be married to someone you don’t love. Love doesn’t enable marriage.

Intellectual property law is the enabler to solution many issues. It allows people to live in harmony, to let people take credit for their own ideas and inventions.

Show less
Reply
Naomi Ramos, Amandine Wiame, Prskalo Eva
The rationale of intellectual property : the justifications of IP What is intellectual property (IP)? “IP is protected in law by, for example, patents, copyright and trademarks, which enable people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or create. By striking the right balance between the interests of innovators and the wider public interest, the IP system…
Read more

The rationale of intellectual property : the justifications of IP

What is intellectual property (IP)?
“IP is protected in law by, for example, patents, copyright and trademarks, which enable people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or create. By striking the right balance between the interests of innovators and the wider public interest, the IP system aims to foster an environment in which creativity and innovation can flourish”. (http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/)

Why do we use intellectual property?
Because without IP they would be no art, no inventions, .. exactly as the cartoon says. The creators of an innovation need a kind of reward, a public recognition by the society in order to continue to create and produce. The main idea of IP is to protect.

The justification addressed in the Cartoon :
The cartoon states that without the law, the inventions or art wouldn’t exist. It states that the law pre-exist all forms of creations… because what would be the point if your ideas are not protected ? The cartoon addresses the fact that IP is an incentive for new inventions, since it creates a financial reward and allows innovators to be cost effective : it is a way to recoup their investment, having a patent attracts investors… It also grants recognition to inventors : intellectual property is not only economical but also considered morally important and even is a human right.

However, we can criticize the idea that IP is a precondition to all inventions. On one hand, the economic incentive of IP does not address inventions that are socially important but not as economically rewarding as others : this exist for example when pharmaceuticals companies are reluctant in investing in research concerning “illnesses of the poor”. Another element is that IP rights are a temporary barrier to the copying of ideas which is necessary to innovation, according to the freedom of competition theory.

Show less
Reply
Charline Haut, Sigal Starc, Léa Gross
What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property Some people may be very not creative, but some always have a pen in the hand, a song in the head, imagination to create a new bag. But all those things already exist: how can we assure the already existing creation will not be copied, and then sold?…
Read more

What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property
Some people may be very not creative, but some always have a pen in the hand, a song in the head, imagination to create a new bag. But all those things already exist: how can we assure the already existing creation will not be copied, and then sold? Let’s firstly outline how important intellectual property law is: how would Picasso control the exploitation of his paints if the right did not exist? We need to have a right protecting creation, otherwise people would not create anymore. Creations would not have a value. Intellectual property aims at protecting whatever someone wrote, painted, sang,…it is the protection of a « moral » production, of a creation, and doesn’t protect tangible things. Intellectual property law allows each author (of paints, books, songs,…) to control how people use their work, with the certification they are the only one being able to reproduce it the same way.

The cartoon refers to one particular justification of intellectual property, which is the natural one. This theory says that everyone has the property of his ideas because they stand out from his own creativity. If there is any intellectual property, any protection, there will be no art, no creation.
We can compare this theory to the property of material goods which includes the right to use, the right to exclude others from use and the right to transfer the owned object. Nobody can steal a good to someone else, because it will be considered as a theft. It’s the same idea with intellectual property, the right of an author is a part of his property, if someone steal it, it’s a theft.

We can challenge this theory by saying that intellectual property is based on goods that became appropriable only by the intervention of the public authorities. Theses goods are at the basis non naturally exploitable.
Another critic that we can make to this theory is that the creator, the author needs his own intellectual labour and ideas, but also unowned ressources.

http://www.law-right.com/intellectual-property-theories-are-they-fairly-justified/
https://onlinebooks.io/intellectual-property-is-common-property/1-classical-justifications-intellectual-property-rights/

Show less
Reply
Lara Coël, Jana Degrott, Fahad Alsadoon, Sonia Belhassen, Melis Metin
“What can you find in a cartoon?” About the rationale of intellectual property Course: intellectual property law – Assignment 1 Traditionally, there are different intellectual property rights which apply to cartoons, notably Copyright and Trademark. Copyright, as it protects new creations which are put into an innovative form, could apply to the specific cartoon being analyzed “Mimi&Eunice”. In fact, the original creation…
Read more

“What can you find in a cartoon?” About the rationale of intellectual property
Course: intellectual property law – Assignment 1

Traditionally, there are different intellectual property rights which apply to cartoons, notably Copyright and Trademark. Copyright, as it protects new creations which are put into an innovative form, could apply to the specific cartoon being analyzed “Mimi&Eunice”. In fact, the original creation lies in the fact that the author came up with the idea of making cartoons entirely dedicated to intellectual property issues, politics, hypocrisy and irony and she created a website to share her work (form). Concerning trademark, it applies to visual aspects and verbal signs thus cartoon characters (such Mimi and Eunice) may be considered as a trademark. To take the example of Mickey Mouse or Betty Boop, both were featured in mass merchandising products. They both became notorious all over the world. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an amended decision , ruled that Betty Boop was indeed a trademark (Available on : http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAFleischerAVELA.pdf).

However, the author of the cartoon at hand, Nina Paley, rejects IP rights which normally give the IP right holder monopoly over his or her creation. Indeed, in her artwork the artist replaces the classic copyright notice © by “♡ Copying is an act of love. Please copy & share.”, of which she calls the symbol “copyheart”. By doing so, she gives everyone the authorization to reproduce and share her cartoons and renounces her right to control her art. She uses irony to show the absurdity of intellectual property rights by saying that art would not exist without copyright, as well as inventions without patents and love without marriage.

The question Nina Paley raises is quite interesting: would there be art or inventions without IP laws protecting them? Would people continue to create if they knew that anyone was able to use their creations without even asking? According to her, there is no doubt: yes, there would still be art and inventions! As students beginning to dive into the subject of intellectual property law, we think that the answer is not that simple.
On the one hand, would artists take the risk of living off of their art? Why would someone invent a new technology totally unprecedented if anyone can recreate it without any kind of compensation? If IP rights would no longer apply to art, some people would abuse of that new freedom and try to take advantage of the artists.

On the other hand, it is not true that vice versa, art and IP rights, would not in a large sense exist without the other. Copyright licenses such as the CC (creative commons) variations and movements such as Copyleft prove that. Those movements, to some extent, try to break down the IP right monopolies for the sake of art. The same can apply to patent law: when someone invents something tomorrow that the whole society or world can benefit from, they can potentially be blocked by other right holder’s patents. Patent law may be capable of protecting certain inventions, it certainly can also be a hindrance to inventions and to the public benefitting from inventions as a whole. This is seemingly why patent law protects the patent holder for 20 years and afterwards it does eventually become a “public” invention.

The point is that the IP rights came into existence as a privileged monopoly and can certainly form an incentive for people to create, invent, etc. (by knowing that they can monopolize and make money from it), it can also do harm to artworks and inventions as a whole by being too strict in the application of it. It’s an important philosophical question and balancing exercise, it seems.

Show less
Reply
Noamane Latrache, Selin Mammadova, Narjis Temsamani, Sarah Salek and Sherine Denisse
The question raised here would be "why does Intellectual Property exist and why does it matter?". IP refers to creations of the mind such as inventions (which are protected by patent law), artistic and literary works (which are protected by copyright law). IP rights allows creators and owners of patents, trademarks or copyrighted works to gain benefits from it and…
Read more

The question raised here would be “why does Intellectual Property exist and why does it matter?”. IP refers to creations of the mind such as inventions (which are protected by patent law), artistic and literary works (which are protected by copyright law). IP rights allows creators and owners of patents, trademarks or copyrighted works to gain benefits from it and to protect those intangible assets.

There are different reasons to justify the existence of IP. First and foremost, it allows to perpetually invent new works which facilitates progress and advancement for the humanity. New ideas create economic and intellectual growth.

To be profitable to society, new ideas must be used, thus they have to be reproduced. It is useful for society to reward those creations of literary or artistic works, because such rewards will encourage authors to create more works, from which society benefits, but somehow, we could say that it’s not actually necessary.

By that, we mean that even if art wasn’t protected by laws, it would still exist! It would not stop creative people from being creative if there wasn’t a reward at the end… The reward, the recognition of the public isn’t, according to us, what motivates artists.

But as soon as an idea gets to be exploited, it has to be applied but by being applied, it has to be disclosed to the public and since it is disclosed to the public, it can be copied! Without the protection that laws grant, those ideas could be easily copied by anyone without providing any financial reward nor recognition to the creator or the artist. This is the economic point of view of the rationale of intellectual property.

Intellectual property also has moral justifications! Knowing that someone can just come and steal the fruits of one’s labour without working for it doesn’t motivate one to invent new things. In our culture, imitating or copying someone else’s idea is clearly despised. That’s why laws were created to protect these intellectual properties. The Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right even grants intellectual property as a human right : “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”.

This protection to get a reward and recognition, as we said earlier, isn’t truly what motivates artists and inventors nor is it what allows art or inventions to exist. Let’s say that it allows those ideas to exist in a honourable and honest way.

The message in this cartoon is quite subtle and ironic. Mimi and Eunice say that without law, love wouldn’t exist. It’s not true because love isn’t something you can control or something that is created by law. First there is love, then law comes afterwards to frame and put formality around it. This way everything is perfectly settled. It’s the same thing with art and inventions, creativity already exists but laws get involved to put order in it otherwise there would be chaos.

Show less
Reply
Blandine Delacroix Margaux de Brouwer Alicia Ghislain Caroline de Crombrugghe Alice Goblet
Copyright refers to a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others. In other words, this right allows the original creator to control the reproduction of his work as well as the right to receive money for that reproduction. We can…
Read more

Copyright refers to a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others. In other words, this right allows the original creator to control the reproduction of his work as well as the right to receive money for that reproduction. We can easily consider copyright as a natural right for creators to benefit from the fruits of their work. Regarding the artistic sphere, it is true that such a law allows the protection of artists. One could even say that such a law encourages artistic production. Copyright allows artists to protect their creations. However, we would not go so far as to say that copyright conditions the very existence of art. Men have, and since the beginning of time, a need to create. The law does not condition the existence of art. It is the globalization and the technology that have, over time, created the need to produce laws and regulations.

The great thing about patent law, is that the state grants the inventor an exclusive right on his invention. This right opens the possibility to its owner to monetorize it and to get an economic benefit from it, among other things. By doing so, it arouses people to create more and more, it stimulates people’s creative minds. Indeed, who would like, for example, to create a new nuclear reactor if everybody could get economic benefits from it and use it freely ? It wouldn’t make any sense. So the statement « without patent law, inventions would not exist » is partly true.

Real estate law’s main goal is to regulate land amongst the people; it helps prevent conflicts among them. Real estate is perhaps the most important field for property disputes, that’s why law regulations is fundamental. Real estate law governs who may own and use the land. Land must thus exist to use real estate law. Intellectual property law will play a big role in business operations. Without land, real estate law will not a lot be applied.

Marriage law gives rights and obligations to the married people . The rights and obligations given can differ in each country. A marriage is a society trend but moreover, it can have legal consequences. For example, marriage contract can protect the man/women in case of separation, can organize the custody of the children, can give a certain amount of money to the spouse, ….etc. The statement « without marriage law, love would not exist » is completely wrong according to me for many reasons. Sometimes, love have nothing to do with marriage, love is a feeling and not the result of a legal statute. It’s not because you’re married to someone that you are going to love him/her. Sometimes, a marriage contract has more to do with money than with love. However, in the logic way, when you are in love with a person, you want to marry him/her to proove to him/her your love. But, we don’t need to forget that even if the marriage can be sometimes a proof of love, the marriage isn’t a constitutive element of love. Another reason why to say that the statement is wrong is saying that in some countries like India for example, your parents decide for you who you are going to marry and you don’t have something to say in it. In this kind of country love and marriage are two things very different, not to say contradictory….

What is really striking in this cartoon is the relationship every creation now has with the Law. In order for us to protect the things we do/buy/create; we drench them in legal rules, hoping that Law will give us all the answers we might one day need. It seems that nowadays, the condition of the very existence of something is its legal framework. It’s like living something is not the same if it’s not officialised by some legal formality; experiencing a long and happy relationship is still not as “serious” as good old legal marriage. This raises awarness about how we could learn to experience the things we do without worrying about the legal definition and consequences they could have.

Show less
Reply
Clémentine Guelton
Justification of IP Law The most popular justification of IP Law, which the comic talks about, is that the lawmakers, when shaping property rights, should aim for a maximal net social welfare. In IP matter, this means striking for the best balance between 1) the power of exclusive rights (in order to stimulate the invention of creations and work of…
Read more

Justification of IP Law

The most popular justification of IP Law, which the comic talks about, is that the lawmakers, when shaping property rights, should aim for a maximal net social welfare. In IP matter, this means striking for the best balance between 1) the power of exclusive rights (in order to stimulate the invention of creations and work of art) and 2) the tendency of these rights to curtail widespread public enjoyment of those creations and art.
The common characteristic of each intellectual creation is that, according to William Lande and Richard Posner, they are easily replicated and the enjoyment of them by one person does not affect the enjoyment of other persons. The creators of those creations are exclusively allowed, for a limited time, to make copies of their creations. Therefore, they are empowered to charge prices (much more greater than they could in a competitive market) for access to their work. By doing that, we avoid creator’s “cost of expression” (composing, writing, negotiating for publishers, …) to be undercut by the copyist who would just have the “low cost of production” (just copying a book, etc…).

On the contrary, some might argue that IP rights constitute a burden for innovation because they allow monopoly. Indeed, they might considered that it goes against the freedom of trade and competition law (SPF economie ).

But exclusivity does not necessarily mean monopoly (the firm fixes the price), even though they might be linked. In fact, it depends whether a substitute exist for the good (e.g. for books, music, etc. lots of substitutes exist, whereas for groundbreaking drugs that save lives, no substitute is available and therefore, the firm will benefit from some sort of de facto monopoly). Anyways, what is sure is that IPRs are crucial if you want to make profits.

Moreover, some creators are more interested in the reputation of their work rather than its financial protection. For example, an unknown musician making a original song is aiming for the recognition of its talent rather than its financial compensation.

Another justification for IP rights would be the ethic and reward theory. This theory justifies the exclusive rights of IP with some moral and ethical aspect. Indeed, the ethic requires a fair and proportional contribution for the effort that the creator has made for the social utility. The exclusive rights are “an expression of gratitude to an author for doing more than society expects or feels that they are obliged to do”.

Eva Oriani
Jimmy Teissen
Benjamin Simonet
Clémentine Guelton

Show less
Reply
Joan Malcolm Maka Sambwa AND Tshibuabua Princina
We think the justification of the cartoon’s intellectual property protections underlies in the moral justification of the intellectual property law. That is a principle according to which one should be entitled to be recognized as the moral author of his work and therefore be entitled to reap the fruits of his own work. Indeed, it would perhaps be seen as…
Read more

We think the justification of the cartoon’s intellectual property protections underlies in the moral justification of the intellectual property law. That is a principle according to which one should be entitled to be recognized as the moral author of his work and therefore be entitled to reap the fruits of his own work.
Indeed, it would perhaps be seen as unfair and parasitic if anyone simply had to copy someone else’s idea in order to make money, become famous or highly recognized. Some would even go as far as to say that it could be considered a theft. Yet it goes out without saying that we may oppose several objections to the enforcement of IP rights.
For example, even if it doesn’t really apply to the market of the cartoon, the enforcement of the IP rights rules may often hamper the developments of other competitors on the market in that it may be very difficult for them to enter a market where all the ideas are already detained by monopolies.
Beside of that, some people state that we cannot consider the copying of someone else’s idea as a theft because the concept of theft only applies to tangible assets/products and not to ideas. Other people even suggest that ideas “want” to be free and that they should be.
Indeed, even if the moral justification of I.P rules is relevant we cannot ignore that sometime copying ideas may serve as a springboard to innovation.
To conclude, all those reasons tend to show that perhaps the lawmakers should soften the grip I.P rights have on many innovative ideas.

Joan-Malcolm Maka ; Princinca Tshibuabua

Show less
Reply
Anya Murphy, Andreea Nita, Cédric Blumenthal, Claire Didisheim, Sara van Gansberghe
Reading the articles « What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property » by Alain Strowel, « Did you say « Intellectual Proprety »? It’s a seductive mirage » by Richard M. Stallman, and the story of Charles Dickens has lead us to envisage a justification to intellectual property law. Indeed, it seems that the…
Read more

Reading the articles « What can you find in a cartoon? About the rationale of intellectual property » by Alain Strowel, « Did you say « Intellectual Proprety »? It’s a seductive mirage » by Richard M. Stallman, and the story of Charles Dickens has lead us to envisage a justification to intellectual property law. Indeed, it seems that the protection given by copyright and patent, etc., encourages artists to develop their art and express their ideas. Knowing that their ideas cannot be stolen and that the meaning of their work cannot be changed is undeniably a great source of comfort to them.

Nevertheless, this justification only puts into light the personnel advantage that a person can take from their art, obstructing arts’ more global aim and preventing its efficient broadcast. Saying that art wouldn’t exist without this form of protection seems like an exaggerated shortcut, leading to the erroneous conclusion that people do art simply to enhance their personal gain.

We therefore agree with this justification on the basis that it seems logical that someone would be more efficient in their work if they did not have to worry about other’s plagiarism intentions. We’d like to point out that, if the production of art might benefit from this protection, its worldwide transmission takes a hit. It must be underlined that art, as a form of expression, is far more than just a profession.

Furthermore, although – as pointed out previously – intellectual property law is what allows the production of art, it can be seen in some perspectives as something that hinders its creation. Take patents for example: a person is given an exclusive right on an innovative creation for which he/she is the author. This is of course positive, because that person is receiving merit for his/her work. But by giving an exclusive right to one individual, you are restricting others, who will be denied access to this creation (unless the author grants them access, which will presumably be based on a profit motive).

Hence, intellectual property law must try to find a balance between, on the one hand, the personal interest of the artists themselves – allowing them to develop and express their ideas through their creations – and the global aim of art which is to let the world benefit from such ideas. This idea of balance can notably be found in “The balancing impact of general EU Law on European intellectual property jurisprudence” written by Alain Strowel and Hee-Eun Kim.

Show less
Reply
Bermudez Léa, Kowalski Lauren, O’Brien Megan, Surleraux Eileen, Walckiers Marie
Bermudez Léa, Kowalski Lauren, O’Brien Megan, Surleraux Eileen, Walckiers Marie The cartoon enhance the importance of IP rights as it limits the process of creation by protecting originals from being exploited without permission form its authors or owners. If every “artists” produces the same piece of art, it will lose its essence and hinder innovations and quality. Moreover, any form of expression…
Read more

Bermudez Léa, Kowalski Lauren, O’Brien Megan, Surleraux Eileen, Walckiers Marie

The cartoon enhance the importance of IP rights as it limits the process of creation by protecting originals from being exploited without permission form its authors or owners.
If every “artists” produces the same piece of art, it will lose its essence and hinder innovations and quality. Moreover, any form of expression (any work and related acts such as reproduction, distribution and communication to the public) falls under the scope of copyright.
However, it does not entirely forbid copying. For example, caricature or in the musical industry, when a melody is used with a complete different text (it does not mean the musical isn’t its owner – The Hollies/Radiohead). It gives the artist legitimacy without compromising others work because the meaning of the resulting art is different, meaning it is an original work based on others. Art does not necessarily stem from the IP right and can subsist by itself.
The same goes about inventions created before the right is granted. It is specially used in economic and industrial application. As it has to fill in requirements (novelty, inventive step and industrial application), it prevent other parties to financially exploit it for 20 years. As reference, the selling of compatible “dosettes” for coffee machines which are not produced by the manufacturers of the machines: once the right is extinct (and not renewed), the “dosettes” market is opened.
Law cover such a wide range of objects, notions and techniques that it seems that even some personal and abstract notions as ‘’love’’, are also, at least, partly regulated and protected. The cartoon ends with humour: love does not exist without marriage contract but again, love does not flourish in a contract as real estate before land.

Show less
Reply
Sébastien Willems; Bruno Garcia Da Silva; Antoine Villance; Louka Lacroix; Sami Manjah; Guillaume Porcheron
The ratio legis of Intellectual property law (IPL) has two mains, innovation and authors and inventors’ protection. Indeed, by protecting authors or artists, the intellectual property rights encourages innovation. There are economic incentives and legal protection. The new author or artist can then create without the fear of having his or her creation stolen. On a practical matter, the…
Read more

The ratio legis of Intellectual property law (IPL) has two mains, innovation and authors and inventors’ protection.

Indeed, by protecting authors or artists, the intellectual property rights encourages innovation. There are economic incentives and legal protection. The new author or artist can then create without the fear of having his or her creation stolen. On a practical matter, the shoes brand Louboutin decided to sue a Dutch company for counterfeiting. The CJEU held in favor of Louboutin. As a luxurious brand, the red color sole is a prestigious distinction of the brand. This distinctive element constitutes an element for the brand to sue any other competitors who would steal their ideas. This is why the company was afraid of being stolen.

Moreover, the IPL helps new authors or inventors to continue his or her invention with financial aids. More specifically, concerning inventors, the patents makes it possible to recoup the money invested in their creation. For instance, the money invested in the research of new drugs can be recovered by using patents.

As a result, the promotion and protection of intellectual property spur economic growth, create new jobs, improve quality and enjoyment of life. Having IPL with patents or copyrights helps the young and new inventors to create and promotes their ideas. Therefore, it helps the economy in a way that inventors feel more secure. By instituting IP rights, it leads to contribute the innovation by giving a control power, a form of excludability or a monopoly.

However, monopoly can have a negative aspect too. If an invention requires multiples patented innovations to be realized, then the patents’ owners can block further innovations. This phenomenon contributes actively to reduct the economic progress rhythm. By way of illustration, Samsung was forced to pay Apple $539 million for violating iPhone patents. This example shows how the monopoly of one brand can block other competitors to create and invent new products in a way that it contributes to an inhibiting development of the company.

To conclude, IPL has become essential in our 21st century’s society. As Mark Getty said “Intellectual property is the oil of the 21 century”. Mark compared in this case IPL with the previous extraction of oil that made many people wealthy as does IPL nowadays.

Bibliography :

DUSOLIER, S. et DE FRANCQUEN, A., Manuel de droits intellectuels,Limal, Anthemis, 2015.
VAN DER KOOIJ, P. et VISSER, D., EU IP law a short introduction to European intellectual property law, Leiden, 2014.
https://www.contrepoints.org/2013/10/06/141599-monopole-intellectuel-mal-inutile
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf

Show less
Reply
Amin Aamlaoui, Farah Sabrina Bendima and Amadeo de Brouwer
(please ignore the previous version sent, it was missing a name) This cartoon, coming from a blog dedicated to tackle issues of Intellectual Property with an humoristic approach, is explaining how intellectual property laws are actually helpful to the development of what it supposedly restrict or protect. “Without copyright law...art would not exist!” means that it is because there’s this protection…
Read more

(please ignore the previous version sent, it was missing a name)

This cartoon, coming from a blog dedicated to tackle issues of Intellectual Property with an humoristic approach, is explaining how intellectual property laws are actually helpful to the development of what it supposedly restrict or protect. “Without copyright law…art would not exist!” means that it is because there’s this protection of art that said art can exist. One would not produce art knowing that anyone could steal it, claim it’s their own and make personal profit out of it. It is quite obvious from a more personal perspective that you wouldn’t put efforts in doing something that could bring more profits to someone else, despite that they didn’t have any input in this creation.

But it’s not only about art itself, and that’s where the cartoon takes it further. “Without patent law, inventions would not exist” is a similar claim from the previous one, but the point is getting broader by the third case with the comparisons with real estate law and marriage law. The simple right of owning a land couldn’t even have concrete effects if it wasn’t for the real estate laws that protect it.

Intellectual property law has a key role to secure and to strengthen a legal right; for instance, designs, inventions, and arts. In this way, the law protects ownerships of private property and real estate. In fact, I.P.R. defend the private control of indefinite assets; indeed, Intellectual property rights gather legal claims of a declared idea. Nevertheless, I.P.R. can be define as the property that results of the fruit’s mental labor to a concrete object. This means structures are trademarks, copyrights, and patents. Back to the cartoon, especially the third pictures : on one side, the real estate is a kind of one of I.P.R that protect the property of a defined land ; in other words, here there is a comparison of real property right and I.P.R. ; indeed , real estate refers to a right about a tangible object in which the protection occurs through the possession but real estate is a right without a determined time or precise territoriality; in others terms it is a right’s plenary, perpetual and above all it is a indivisible right. Besides, real estate is located in a clear opposition of I.P.R.; indeed, this last stress on a intangible object and also apply in a well-defined time line. In the end, Marriage law can be seen like a place where every idea / object conceptualized during the union belong in the end so to the community’s asset of both wife and husband. In this way , the marriage law is the law that define the legal requirements to define the validity and so a protection of marriage like the role of I.P.R. for idea but nevertheless there is a distinguish between Marriage law and I.P.R. ; indeed on the side of marriage law this requirements vary up countries then that is not the case of I.P.R. where its requirements doesn’t vary through the world.

Show less
Reply
Elodie Vanderbist
The cartoon in question shows a reflexion on the purpose of different kinds of law, specifically exposing how the existence of the law sometimes conditions creation and innovation in our society. In its first two squares, the cartoon focuses on two main Intellectual Property law concepts, Copyright and patent. There are four main IP rights: - Copyright: The copyright protects…
Read more

The cartoon in question shows a reflexion on the purpose of different kinds of law, specifically exposing how the existence of the law sometimes conditions creation and innovation in our society. In its first two squares, the cartoon focuses on two main Intellectual Property law concepts, Copyright and patent.
There are four main IP rights:
– Copyright: The copyright protects a literary or artistic work, an intangible intellectual creation. It confers economic rights and moral rights such as: the reproduction right, the right of adaptation, the right of communication to the public, … (see especially the Copyright Directive of 2001).
– Trademark : “The function of trademark protection is to prevent confusion on the part of the public and to prevent the taking of unfair advantage by competitors, who may use signs which cause confusion with trademark of others” (see especially the Trade Mark Directive of 2008). “In other words, Trademark confers on a company, an association or an individual the monopoly of exploitation of the mark for the type of products or services it supports”.
– Patents: “Patents offer protection for inventions, understood as being the technical solution to a problem”. “It confers upon its proprietor, in each contracting state in respect of which it is granted, the same rights as would be conferred by a national patent granted in a state” (see especially European -Patent Convention of 1793 as revised in 2000 and entered into force on 13 December 2007).
– Designs: it lies between the protection granted by copyright and trademark. “A registered Community design shall confer on its holder the exclusive right to use it and to prevent any third party not having its consent from using it”.
Everything exists because law exist. On the contrary, nothing could exist without the existence of the law. In relation to the IP, the “creation of the mind” (as it is called by van der Kooij and Visser) would never been protected – and, therefore, would not exist – if the ownership has not an exclusive right of the said creation. In other words, IP rights are necessary for the development and sustenance of the creations of the mind. If the invention is protected and can’t be stolen, and fully benefits the inventor, the creation of inventions will be boosted. On the other hand, if an inventor spent all his time and money to invent something that can be stolen at any moment, and thus reap no benefits, there won’t be any incentive for the inventor to continue creating.
In our opinion, the cartoon itself is protected by a patent because it fits with the definition of this IP: the cartoon is an invention, new, and capable of industrial application. To take our cartoon as an example, if it is not protected, everyone will use it, transform it, and eventually make money from it. Even if the new cartoon will still be different from the original one, it won’t be different enough to entertain a creative society, and more if it is used on a larger scale. That’s why every work has to be protected: to encourage people to be creative and to protect them from stealers: the creation of inventions will be boosted. Our societies need innovation and art to thrive! 
Of course, there is a difference between getting inspiration of a work and copy it. But that’s why the law is so important in our society and plays a rule at every moments of our lives: it makes the right balance between every partie’s interests.

Source: van der Kooij (P.) and Visser (D.), EU IP Law, A short introduction to European Intellectual Property Law, Leiden, Leiden Law School, 2014, 146 p.

Claire Martin, Manuella Buckinx, Marilou Debouche, Trecy De Leener, Elodie Vanderbist

Show less
Reply
Madeline de Meester, Eléonore Esgain, Joanne Defer
According to this cartoon, concepts such as art or love would not exist without the laws regulating them. This implies that we are entirely shaped by laws that tell us what to feel, what to think, what to want, what to do… Consequently, we only fall in love because mariage law provides us with the possibility of getting married. And…
Read more

According to this cartoon, concepts such as art or love would not exist without the laws regulating them. This implies that we are entirely shaped by laws that tell us what to feel, what to think, what to want, what to do… Consequently, we only fall in love because mariage law provides us with the possibility of getting married. And we only come up with new inventions because there is a law regulating patents.

This approach to intellectual property law does hold some elements of truth. The essence of intellectual property law is giving credit back to the person who has created a specific work, piece of art or invention. It is about recognising one’s creative spirit, and by doing so, enabling them to expand their activity on the market, acquire rights and earn money. Thus, if there were no benefits to inventing something new, many potential inventors would be very much discouraged. The impact on the technological development of society would be disastrous.

However, this approach needs to be nuanced. Intellectual property law, as any branch of law, is a consequence of the facts and situations of our daily life. It comes afterwards; it is meant to regulate what is already there. For example, it would be rather unreasonable to say that criminal law creates criminal behaviour.
Back to intellectual property law, we can state that art and inventions would effectively exist without copyright law and patent law, but they would not be regulated. There would probably be appropriation by some of other people’s work and this would challenge the common moral sense. For the sake of the well-being of society, such chaos is hardly desirable.

We can add that this way of thinking is way too closed upon itself; if love only exists because of marriage law, what about countries that don’t have marriage law or that just happen to have a totally different type of marriage law that the one we have ? Don’t all the other countries around the world have art, inventions, land and love ?

Finally, according to this cartoon, inventions are defined by patent law only. Without patent law’s definition, they would not exist. This seems to be a misleading shortcut when we consider all the other branches of law which surround inventions. For example, the overprotection of the right to a patent could lead to the violation of fundamental rights. In the case of a medical patent, the right to a patent can conflict with the right to have access to medical care.
We can then notice that what concretely defines an invention is not only patent law but are also other branches of law.

As a conclusion, we can say that our laws to have an influence on our behaviour but do not control us entirely. Our behaviour precedes our laws which then come to regulate it. Besides, all around the world, there are different ways of apprehending art, inventions or love. Just because those concepts are not regulated in a similar manner, it does not mean that they don’t exist. Lastly, in the case of patent law, we can see that this branch of law is not the only actor taking part in the definition of an invention. Therefore, the existence of inventions does not solely depend on patent law.

Show less
Reply
Lauro Cavallo, Valentine Leclercq, Isabelle Jacques, Isabel Nauwelaers
We might claim that intellectual property has not one, but two rationales. A short-term one, and a long-term one. On the short term, intellectual property laws are simply established to protect ideas and their authors. In fact, creations are never totally immune from unconscious copying or plagiarism, and that is why they must be protected from such unfair activities. Not only…
Read more

We might claim that intellectual property has not one, but two rationales. A short-term one, and a long-term one.
On the short term, intellectual property laws are simply established to protect ideas and their authors. In fact, creations are never totally immune from unconscious copying or plagiarism, and that is why they must be protected from such unfair activities. Not only must the idea be protected, but also the creator himself: he has a right over his creation, and his work is particularly original and outstanding that it cannot be attributed to anyone else. Thus, on the short-term, intellectual property is simply, and simultaneously, the lawful protection of the creation and the right of its creator to remain its rightful owner.
However, on the long term, the rationale of intellectual property is more grandiose: it is necessary for progress. How can inventions ever be made if potential creators constantly fear of not gaining anything from it, except to assist to the theft of their own creation ? We live in an age where technology evolves ever faster, and intellectual property laws become ever more needed. Inventions must be protected by law, so that inventors can dare to invent without the anxiety of having their work stolen. To allow progress, talent must be protected, and every innovation must have its owner. Furthermore, it allows creators to be remunerated for their creation and not someone else who stole the creation to benefit from it. Only the true creator can make profit over his creation because it’s the fruit of his imagination and not from someone else’s.
However, intellectual property law may have another, less benign, rationale. Exclusive ownership on a creation can grant too much power to its creator. In fact, he can use his intellectual property right as a censorship to every new creation that might be slightly similar its own, and thus paradoxically use intellectual property laws to prevent progress, rather than enabling it.
That is why intellectual property law has three fundamental objectives to achieve. Firstly, it must protect original creations from being copied or stolen, thus to a certain extent protecting the creator’s right to ownership of his work. Secondly, it must sustain progress, by protecting today’s creations and give incentives that will encourage even more creations in the future. Finally, it must find avoid giving extensive and arbitrary powers to owners that might be abusing of their right by unreasonably use it in order to serve their own interests, thus halting progress.

Show less
Reply
Héloise Van Houtte, Marie Fanara, Elodie Vernieuwe, Anouchka Bosserez, Alexia Campo
The cartoon justifies the existence of intellectual property law by pointing out the fact that without it, disciplines such as art, inventions, and so on, could not exist or develop. Indeed, this cartoon seems to say that if we did not have copyright laws, people would not create anymore. Some may argue it is an understandable justification as we can…
Read more

The cartoon justifies the existence of intellectual property law by pointing out the fact that without it, disciplines such as art, inventions, and so on, could not exist or develop.

Indeed, this cartoon seems to say that if we did not have copyright laws, people would not create anymore. Some may argue it is an understandable justification as we can see how it is discouraging to write a book for instance, only for this book to be copied, transformed, modified, and so on, by anyone who wants to do so. Some products or pieces of art can be the result of a huge amount of work, and not protecting their creator could lead to a stalemate.

However, this assertion ought to be put into perspective. Indeed, not everyone believes intellectual property law to be beneficial, and some have shed light on its downsides. Many have criticized it, thinking for instance that because of the fact that intellectual property laws are quite broad, they can « stifle an individual’s creativity rather than encourage it » (http://theconversation.com/why-cash-and-copyright-are-bad-news-for-creativity-34696, “why cash and copyright are bad news for creativity”). It is common knowledge that previous material or creations are often used by artists as a source of inspiration. We can take the instance of musicians who will get inspired by a harmony or who adapt a song. For example, Johnny Halliday’s song “Le pénitencier” is an adaptation of “The house of the Rising Sun” by the Animals. Another instance is G.R.R. Martin who has times and times repeated that his books “A song of Ice and Fire” (Game of thrones) were directly inspired by Tolkien’s trilogy “The lord of the Rings”. There is a risk that copyrights laws will lead artists or inventors to stop creating new pieces of work, by fear of being sued. It is a vision shared by the website new media rights in their article “What are the major criticisms of the copyright laws in the US? ».

The other problem is that copyright laws are all about economic rights, it is mainly about the protection of the money supposedly ought to a creator. This can have an impact on creativity in itself, given the fact that « creativity is closely linked to motivation, and humans become creative when they’re internally motivated by curiosity or interest or desire. They get demotivated — and less creative – when you introduce money into the equation » (http://theconversation.com/why-cash-and-copyright-are-bad-news-for-creativity-34696, “why cash and copyright are bad news for creativity”). There are many amateurs that uses the work of other people to create their own work and they do not do it for the money. Some of these amateurs will afterwards become famous and get their own copyrights. Others won’t. But all these people are creating and copyrights laws are putting their creativity in danger. We should let these people use others material to create their own, it can lead to new pieces art

In conclusion, although the idea of copyrights was born from a good intention, it has many downsides. Copyrights laws were adopted in order to protect and encourage creativity but it actually restrains and discourages creativity.

Héloise Van Houtte, Marie Fanara, Elodie Vernieuwe, Anouchka Bosserez, Alexia Campo

Show less
Reply
Reid Ysaline
Work realised by Pauline Bernard, Lola Gillet, Flore Flandre, Juliette Campogrande and Ysaline Reid. The notion of intellectual property refers to “knowledge, creative ideas, or expressions of human mind that have commercial value and are protectable under copyright, patent, servicemark, trademark, or trade secret laws from imitation, infringement, and dilution”. According to the business dictionary, intellectual property “is one of the…
Read more

Work realised by Pauline Bernard, Lola Gillet, Flore Flandre, Juliette Campogrande and Ysaline Reid.

The notion of intellectual property refers to “knowledge, creative ideas, or expressions of human mind that have commercial value and are protectable under copyright, patent, servicemark, trademark, or trade secret laws from imitation, infringement, and dilution”. According to the business dictionary, intellectual property “is one of the most readily tradable properties in the digital marketplace”.

What are the reasons of the creation of intellectual property? Intellectual property benefits the society in many ways:

First and foremost, by the recognition and protection of new ideas, people are rewarded and therefore there is a strong incentive to the creation of new theories which add a gain to society and economy in general. By protecting people’s ideas, intellectual property is a stimulus for people to create their own work rather than pushing towards the commercialization of personal intellectual work.

Moreover, from an ethical point of view, awarding recognition to the creator of an intangible asset should be considered as obvious. Indeed, as the creator of a specific piece of work, being rewarded for the investment and time spent is evident, and you do not want others to use your ideas without compensation. The opposite would restrain people from the creation.

However, in our opinion, there are some limits to intellectual property and the protection of intellectual work. In order to innovate, an optimum should be found on the one hand between protecting ideas and on the other hand allowing the creation of new ideas without too much constraints. Besides, intellectual property law should not be used as a speculative tool but only to protect newness and ideas.

In conclusion, the cartoon shows that intellectual property law exists in order to protect interests but it is not the essential condition for innovation as well as marriage law is not the condition for love.

Show less
Reply
Lucie Decock, Rémy Demoutiez, Vassilia Kamitatu, Nathalia Miranda, Gloria Niyitegeka
The birth of intellectual property law stems from the historical development of a liberal society, which strives to find an equilibrium between free creation and individual property. The general aim is, indeed, to make sure that the original ideas and creations of people – through art, literature, science and a lot of other forms of expression – are protected as…
Read more

The birth of intellectual property law stems from the historical development of a liberal society, which strives to find an equilibrium between free creation and individual property. The general aim is, indeed, to make sure that the original ideas and creations of people – through art, literature, science and a lot of other forms of expression – are protected as individual ideas, and to prevent them from being re-appropriated by someone else. We could say the rationale of intellectual property law is double. Firstly, it is economic: the inventor has the monopoly on his invention for a time and his idea is therefore financially rewarded; society also benefits of creations economically speaking, new creations and new technologies are indeed always good for the development of the society’s economy. Secondly, we can speak of another justification, which has more to do with moral rights: as an individual, is it recognized that you have a right to get the credit for your ideas, and to be protected against people who would try to copy you.
The cartoon we are looking at says, inter alia, that “without copyright law, art would not exist” and “without patent law, inventions would not exist”.
This shows an important reason behind intellectual property law: the cartoon states, in a humoristic way, that art and science/technology need copyright and patent law to exist as they exist today. Indeed, the way scientific and artistic creations are protected today really influences the development of art and inventions. Because inventors, authors, scientists, know their creations and their status of author/inventor will be protected, they will be able to make a living out of their creations and be recognized for them.
This, of course, encourages people to choose that path of artistic, scientific, technological or literary creation, so the consequence is that art and technologies develop and benefit society. Intellectual property law is an incentive to artistic and technological creation and it creates a legal field in which these creations can be made. Without the protection given by intellectual property law, art and sciences would not be able to thrive as much. So, in other words, inventions and art, would not exist as we know them, without the regulations coming from intellectual property law.
Thus, saying that there would be no art, and no inventions, at all, without intellectual property law, is also false. This can sort of be deduced by the second part of the cartoon. (indeed, love still exists even without marriage law!). The elimination of intellectual property rights would inevitably lead to significant confusion and chaos not only in the marketplace, but in society as a whole. The artistic and scientific arena would quickly deteriorate as artists, authors, and other creative individuals would be less inclined to create without protection.
As intellectual property law is not a condition for the existence of art or inventions per se, it is the condition for the creative matrix of society, as people rest assured that they may get the advantages of their creation whilst being able to share it and take part in the socio-economic growth.

Show less
Reply
Céline Vandermeulen
The two first frames make us believe that art and inventions are only permissible thanks to copyright law and patent law. However, the last frame makes an analogy with marriage law and real estate law. By reading this, we are called to mind because we know that love and lands are not the consequence of marriage or of the real…
Read more

The two first frames make us believe that art and inventions are only permissible thanks to copyright law and patent law. However, the last frame makes an analogy with marriage law and real estate law.
By reading this, we are called to mind because we know that love and lands are not the consequence of marriage or of the real estate. IP protection doesn’t make concepts like love, lands, inventions or art existing. They exist by themselves because ideas are free and uncontrollable. All of these concepts would exist without the law, it’s just that they wouldn’t be protected. A lot of people say that IP protects ideas, but it’s not true to say that, because it only protects immaterial elements, the final result or the shape of an object.
To conclude, with this analogy established, we can say that copyright law and patent law are finally the consequence of art and inventions. The cartoon would have been more appropriated if it started as : « Without art… copyright law would not exist. Without inventions… Patent law would not exist ».
Céline Vandermeulen, Andreea Pletea, Corentin Burton, Catherine Lipski, Scott Vilasco

Show less
Reply
Calimaq

Bonjour,

Merci pour le “friendly blog” !

Je me souviens encore, il y a quelques années, lorsque je découvrais la propriété intellectuelle en lisant certains de vos ouvrages.

C’est un plaisir de savoir que l’on pourra dorénavant vous lire ici.

Cordialement,

Calimaq

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use simple HTML tags to add links or lists to your comment:
<a href="url">link</a> <ul><li>list item 1</li><li>list item2</li></ul> <em>italic</em> <strong>bold</strong>