Read more
This cartoon shows the impact of the protection provided by the law – generally and in specific branches.
Law provide protection and ownership.
The first image represents 2 characters talking about the copyright law which guarantees the existence of art. In fact copyright law has allowed the protection of a person who creates a piece of art. It’s a protection because there’s a part of the person in the creation and it avoid an appropriation from other people.
By that as soon as someone create a piece of art, there is a kind of protection that she can pretend of. But without copyright law it would be impossible to be protected.
The same principle is applied for patent law with the inventions. That’s what shows the second image with the dialogue of the 2 characters. Patent law allows the creators of inventions to get a patent which is a sort of a mark (sign) that guarantees the fact that they are the owners of the creation and it protect them when the inventions is on the market. It avoid the stealing by other people of their creation. People are “forced” to develop their creativity to avoid copying on others and be punished for it.
The third image is exaggerated but it shows the same principle too. Law provide a framework and limits.
Read more
It is a cartoon, divided in 3 parts, which shows two characters discussing the impact of the law in different situations we encounter every day. Their speech ironically suggests that without intellectual property law, art and inventions would not exist. They exaggerate their point by comparing it to love, which would not exist without marriage. This is an irrational view of intellectual property.
Indeed, copyright does not prevent the existence of art but offers protection to its author which is really necessary in view of the massive production of art nowadays.
Copyright was invented around the 15th century, at that time it served to control what was published and the ideas shared among the people, since the invention of printing led to a great diffusion of ideas. Whereas today, copyright allows the author to control the reproductions of his work.
Similarly, patents provide the same protection to the inventor without preventing the creation of new inventions.
Initially, patents were an authorization given by the king to be the only one to exercise a practice, it was thus a privilege. Since 1883, this principle has been included in the Paris Convention in order to control the patent system. Nowadays, a patent guarantees the legal exclusivity of the use of an invention for a determined period of time.
In conclusion, patents and copyrights, governed by intellectual property law, are not conditions for the existence of a concept but rather a protection given to the author.
Show lessRead more
What can you find in a cartoon about the rartionale of IP law?
The displayed cartoon of mimi and Eunice states as follows: “Without copyright law…art would not exist! Without patent law… inventions would not exist! Without real estate law… land would not exist! Without marriage law…love would not exist!”. These statements are clearly an ode to law and to its importance in the world. Nevertheless, we have to be aware that law doesn’t create all those things, law, in every case mentioned but specifically related to intellectual property, acts just as a protective screen and guarantee to all those issues.
While art and inventions (as well as love and land) have existed for as long as time exists, intellectual property law, specifically that regulating copyright and patents, only appeared, respectively, on the 15th/16th centuries and the 15th century. Didn’t art and inventions exist before the 15th century?
There are many theories trying to explain the rationale of Intellectual Property: According to the labour law, people are entitled to own property rights based on the labour they put into obtaining the subject matter; according to the personality theory, generating something and making it accessible to the public is an expression of personality, thus, shall be protected; lastly, according to the fairness theory, it is fair to reward someone for enriching society (by creating).
However, law does bring both protection to those who create and innovate, and incentive to those who want to create and innovate; and without incentive and protection, most issues wouldn’t develop as they have nowadays. Law doesn’t condition the existence of art and inventions, but it does reassure and guarantee its legitimacy and economic compensation, which sometimes are the stimuli needed for artists to create, without which they wouldn’t (at least as much).
Read more
The intellectual property right is found everywhere. It’s the rights given individuals over the creations of their minds. They have for function to give to the creator the exclusivity on it so no one else can take advantadge of those ones.
Now we gonna focus on the case of the intellectual property rights in cartoon. When we think about cartoons we directly think about an artist’s work because they are drawnings.
The author’s right is a protective measure and all artistic creation has to be protected because if it’s not it would mean that art doesn’t exist and anyone could appropriate himself a work that does not belong to him. This would cause harm to the real author because it will be a loss of money and work for him.
Also, a cartoon can be protected by the patent law it’s an exclusif right given to an invention. During the time of the protection of this patent the possessor of this right can decide who can or cannot use his creation.
Read more
The cartoon is divided into three sequences.
The first sequence shows Mimi and Eunice talking about the relationship between art and IP law, stating that art would not exist without IP law. We think that this is not exactly true since art existed a long time before IP law and many artists work without protecting their work through IP rights. But still, although the cartoon is exaggerating, with regard to the labour theory as well as the fairness theory IP rights can be seen as some kind of reward for the artists’ work and thus be an incentive to create. However, art will not stop existing without IP protection since it is more the result of a creative process, based on personal passion. Personally, we think it is fair that artists get rewarded through IP rights, but not having IP protection would limit, but never stop the creation of art.
On the contrary, it might be different for inventions, as mentioned in the second section of the cartoon. The majority of inventions are not created by passion but more for economic reasons. So in this field implementing incentives can be more important than in the area of art. If there was no legal protection for inventions, many inventions would probably not exist, since the inventors could not profit from it. Therefore, society would not be able to move forward or would evolve a lot slowlier. However, there are limits to this so-called incentive theory.There are other incentives such as public funding to create inventions, which makes IP protection less essential for inventors. In history, there are many examples of inventions just created accidentally, without any incentive or market demand.
The last section of the cartoon shows its exaggeration in an extreme way. Mimi and Eunice state that land would not exist without real estate law and neither would love without marriage law, which is preposterous. It seems like a critique of how we as a society want to “overregulate” almost every aspect of life. It seems clear that the statement is not actually true, and limits the logic elaborated in the previous sections.
Show lessRead more
The cartoon reminds us that we are constantly surrounded by laws for almost everything in our lives. But does this really mean that without law all of those different things wouldn’t exist? From our point of view, we would tend to say that law probably makes those things easier to develop, to organise or to use but is not a condition of existence as such.
Talking about art: it is not thanks to copyright that art does exist. Copyright has been built up in order to protect artistic work. This is about deontology. We realized that things wouldn’t be fair if someone gets the credit for others’ work. There are some theories about this:
According to John Locke, the way we appropriate things should be based on the fact that someone gave time and energy to create something, such as a piece of art, and must be rewarded by owning property rights (Labour theory). Or we would rather say, on the basis of another theory, we need to grant protection to the one who accepts to disclose his/her personal work (Personality theory). As someone creates some piece of art, this person is enriching the cultural heritage of society and deserves a reward (Fairness theory). So, copyright is providing some fairness to artists.
What about inventions? It is the same idea: humans did invent a lot of things before patent law arrived. But patents definitely encourage inventors to concretise their project! Indeed, once your invention is released, everybody can use it without having to invest anything and you will not be reimbursed for what you’ve created. This issue is called free-riding and is the reason why patents were created in order to grant an exclusive right to inventors for 20 years while they can have some return on their investment.
Then, in the third sketch, we have real estate and marriage. It is clear for us that land and love pre-exist any form of law. Furthermore, love and marriage are separable: you can marry someone without loving him/her and you can love someone without marrying him/her. So even if both are linked, one can exist without the other. It is the same for land, it has always been there with or without real estate.
To sum up our reflection about this cartoon: IP law is just the way society decided to function regarding things that pre-exist any form of regulations. Therefore, we can even say that IP law is an invention itself that came right after a great deal of other inventions and that will enable further inventions to come.
Show lessRead more
The cartoon shown here brings up important issues about IP law. Indeed, copyright is fundamental in the art field in order to protect the artist and to value him for example. Without this particular protection ensured by intellectual property law, it is obvious that art, inventions, etc. will still exist since it always existed. Anyhow, since art in particular, is something very personal, the result of a singular artistic process, it is essential to be able to give to the creator a certain recognition and to give him what he deserves about it. Moreover, IP law seems to have even more importance in the context of our actual society. Indeed, today we are in a society where everything can be spread and seen by everybody very quickly, where every work, text, picture, essay can be within everyone’s reach in a very short period of time. In this context IP law has its importance to ensure the authenticity of each one work or to protect the artwork of people form others who will want to benefit of it in order to make money for example.
Intellectual property rights do not limit the creation of art, designs, etc., but protect these creations. Intellectual property rights prevent the author from having his ideas, his work and his imagination stolen. This right allows the author to receive credit for the work he or she has done.
Intellectual property law is an important right because it protects certain approaches. If we try to sell a product to a third party and that person finds out how our product works or how it was made, that person will not want to buy our product. This has an economic impact on the company and we, who have invested so much money, will lose out because the secret of our product will be exposed.
This is the same thing that happens in the medical and pharmaceutical field. When a new effective drug comes on the market, it is not in the interest of the manufacturers that the composition of this drug is revealed, because otherwise they will lose all their economic interest and will no longer be able to sell it to certain firms.
This is what happened with the COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed, intellectual property barriers have prevented the manufacture of vaccines in low-income countries. In the case of pharmaceutical patents, governments must grant exclusive rights to the patent holder for a given period of time. This means that when a pharmaceutical company or firm develops a “cure” drug, it has an exclusive right to sell its product and charge the price that the company or firm wants.
Read more
The cartoon represents two characters that discuss the impacts of law on various important aspects of everyone’s day-to-day life.
The first dialogue is about the fact that, according to the characters, « without copyright law, art would not exist ! ». Copyright makes it possible to protect an artist/ a writer personally as a person who created a piece of art. We protect the art someone produces because a part of his personality is in it. It is necessary to protect the fact that someone accepts to release something to society that will present himself. It is by developing the personality of the artist that it will allow them to develop their personality and therefore extend the material value they put into society. There are no formalities in copyright, as soon as you right/draw/paint… something you get some form of protection. I asked an artist if she would still produce art if copyright did not exist and she answered that she would not produce art with exquisite quality if copyright law did not exist as she would not be able to make a living out of it. For some artists the ability to make art is dependent upon the ability to make money from there work.
The second dialogue is about the fact that « without patent law, inventions would not exist ! ». When someone creates an invention and it responds to the condition of novelty they will get a patent (after fulfilling the formalities of course). In my opinion patents are fundamental and a world can hardly be imagined without them. Of course, the cartoon exaggerates when it affirms that inventions would not exist if patent law wasn’t a thing. However patent law truly encourages people to imagine completely different models of innovations and technological advancement as it rewards innovative activity. Patent promotes progress.
However patent protection should not go too far either. It should not be overprotected and lead to exclusive use of only one part of society as the goal of patent is to create more benefit for society as a whole. If we take the example of pharmaceutics, there has been huge public funding for vaccines against Covid-19. To end the pandemic as soon as possible, everyone in the world needs access to safe and effective vaccines. The current vaccine supply is insufficient. Therefore, the manufacturing capacity of vaccines needs to be maximized. More certified pharmaceutical companies should use their factories for vaccine production. To enable them to do so, pharmaceutical companies with approved vaccines on the market must share their patent rights, know-how and technology.
Therefore when we take into consideration this example and the fact that patent promotes progress we see that a balance should be formed between these two interests. Innovations should be protected but to a certain extent.
The third dialogue is about the fact that « without real estate there would be no land and without marriage law, there would be no love ». This third affirmation shows a certain evolution in the extent to which law has an effect on everyone’s day-to-day life. The cartoon goes a bit too far. Law does not rule everything. There will still be land without real estate law however the notion of property will be questioned. For John Locke, private property is a natural law and I agree with him when he says it is a form of need for us to have property over something we consider we own. However they go way too far when they say that there would be no land. I think this cartoon shows how we sometime forget about reality and get blinded by all the formalities society brings in.
The second affirmation concerning marriage will even bring a smile to your face as it is absurd. Of course love will always exist without marriage and this is not what will be discussed. What is interesting it the fact that the cartoon highlights such a conception where everything should be framed and put in a certain order like law.
Conclusion : Concerning patent and copyright law, I stand by Rawls’ fairness theory. In my opinion it is only fair to give someone a reward for enriching society. Anyone, if they were put in a « vail of ignorance », would chose to be rewarded for the work they accomplish. Therefore, hard work should be rewarded and authors should retain control of the fruits of their labors.
Furthermore, protecting people for what they put into society and rewarding them for it will allow society to benefit form even more inventions. This is due to the fact that people will know that the work they will put in will be rewarded. This sense of property of your own work and the possibility to make money out of it will then motivate them to work even harder and the whole society will then benefit from it. This opinion is very utilitarian as it will benefit the role society and make everyone happier.
I truly believe it is in our human nature to except recognition for our work and that without it we would definitely not put a lot of effort in any innovative intentions. However the third conversation the characters have brings us back on earth, we sometimes forget about reality and the basic meaning of some things like love and land.
Read more
This cartoon illustrates and summarizes what we have learned in class about the basic principles of intellectual property rights as well as the regulation behind it. Intellectual property (IP) law can be defined as a legal system that ensures the protection of tangible and intangible assets. It enforces rights regarding art, inventions, etc. This comic is a perfect representation of the protection of the exclusive control of this intangible asset. Indeed, IP law does not create art and inventions as such, like the comic pretends. It just allows art and inventions to exist, by conferring such artistic works protection rights. Without protection, no one would be able to “own” their work.
The ultimate goal of this IP law protection system is to provide a safe environnement for creative or innovative work to develop. It helps the creator to not worry about someone simply stealing his/her/their work. In fact, we can see in the comments that the creators obtain economic benefits for their work. This also allows for artists and creators to get remunerated for their art and inventions. So, without IP rights, art would not be on the market, therefore, it would not allow people to make a career out of it or get something from it. That is a second reason why the comic pretends that art and inventions would not exist without IP law.
Thus, it is true that IP protection rights such as copyright and patents are essential and inherent to the commerce of invention and art, just like real estate law is essential and inherent to the commerce of land (which is the other example the comic puts forward).
Finally, IP law allows for knowledge to be broadcasted to the public. This means that without this protection, the creations would circulate in private circles because people look to obtain access through other methods then the traditional official ones that are in place. What the comic does not show is that, in order to provide IP protection rights as well as creating an open space for the public to have access to such work, there has to be a balance between restriction and creativity. In fact, it is a very important aspect of IP law nowadays.
Ingrid VAN BIESEN, Amélie SERONT, Camille JADOUL, Clara SOHY, Vincent GROTECLAES
Show lessRead more
The cartoon represents two characters that discuss the impacts of law on various important aspects of everyone’s day-to-day life.
The first dialogue is about the fact that, according to the characters, « without copyright law, art would not exist ! ». Copyright makes it possible to protect an artist/ a writer personally as a person who created a piece of art. We protect the art someone produces because a part of his personality is in it. It is necessary to protect the fact that someone accepts to release something to society that will present himself. It is by developing the personality of the artist that it will allow them to develop their personality and therefore extend the material value they put into society. There are no formalities in copyright, as soon as you right/draw/paint… something you get some form of protection. I asked an artist if she would still produce art if copyright did not exist and she answered that she would not produce art with exquisite quality if copyright law did not exist as she would not be able to make a living out of it. For some artists the ability to make art is dependent upon the ability to make money from there work.
The second dialogue is about the fact that « without patent law, inventions would not exist ! ». When someone creates an invention and it responds to the condition of novelty they will get a patent (after fulfilling the formalities of course). In my opinion patents are fundamental and a world can hardly be imagined without them. Of course, the cartoon exaggerates when it affirms that inventions would not exist if patent law wasn’t a thing. However patent law truly encourages people to imagine completely different models of innovations and technological advancement as it rewards innovative activity. Patent promotes progress.
However patent protection should not go too far either. It should not be overprotected and lead to exclusive use of only one part of society as the goal of patent is to create more benefit for society as a whole. If we take the example of pharmaceutics, there has been huge public funding for vaccines against Covid-19. To end the pandemic as soon as possible, everyone in the world needs access to safe and effective vaccines. The current vaccine supply is insufficient. Therefore, the manufacturing capacity of vaccines needs to be maximized. More certified pharmaceutical companies should use their factories for vaccine production. To enable them to do so, pharmaceutical companies with approved vaccines on the market must share their patent rights, know-how and technology.
Therefore when we take into consideration this example and the fact that patent promotes progress we see that a balance should be formed between these two interests. Innovations should be protected but to a certain extent.
The third dialogue is about the fact that « without real estate there would be no land and without marriage law, there would be no love ». This third affirmation shows a certain evolution in the extent to which law has an effect on everyone’s day-to-day life. The cartoon goes a bit too far. Law does not rule everything. There will still be land without real estate law however the notion of property will be questioned. For John Locke, private property is a natural law and I agree with him when he says it is a form of need for us to have property over something we consider we own. However they go way too far when they say that there would be no land. I think this cartoon shows how we sometime forget about reality and get blinded by all the formalities society brings in.
The second affirmation concerning marriage will even bring a smile to your face as it is absurd. Of course love will always exist without marriage and this is not what will be discussed. What is interesting it the fact that the cartoon highlights such a conception where everything should be framed and put in a certain order like law.
Conclusion : Concerning patent and copyright law, I stand by Rawls’ fairness theory. In my opinion it is only fair to give someone a reward for enriching society. Anyone, if they were put in a « vail of ignorance », would chose to be rewarded for the work they accomplish. Therefore, hard work should be rewarded and authors should retain control of the fruits of their labors.
Furthermore, protecting people for what they put into society and rewarding them for it will allow society to benefit form even more inventions. This is due to the fact that people will know that the work they will put in will be rewarded. This sense of property of your own work and the possibility to make money out of it will then motivate them to work even harder and the whole society will then benefit from it. This opinion is very utilitarian as it will benefit the role society and make everyone happier.
I truly believe it is in our human nature to except recognition for our work and that without it we would definitely not put a lot of effort in any innovative intentions. However the third conversation the characters have brings us back on earth, we sometimes forget about reality and the basic meaning of some things like love and land.
Read more
What can you find in a cartoon about the rationale of IP law?
The cartoon of Mimi & Eunice is a sequence of three panels. Where the cartoons first state that “without copyright law, art would not exist”, then that “without patent law, inventions would not exist”, finally that “without real estate law, land would not exist” and “without marriage law, love would not exist”.
This is a caricature. If we take the example of copyright law, it’s invention is commonly associated with the invention of the printing press, in the 15th era, but art has and would exist regardless. The exaggeration is more visible in the claim that without real estate law, land would not exist because we all know that land exist beyond laws. So, if we understand the statements literally then they would be wrong. We understand, through these statements, that there is something fundamental about intellectual property laws. Without these laws the notions they refer to wouldn’t be what they are today, they provide a protection.
To illustrate we will use copyright law. Copyright covers moral and economic rights. The moral rights allow creators to take certain actions to preserve and protect their link to their work. As for they cover the right of attribution and the right of integrity.
The economic rights cover reproduction and communication to the public. Artist can choose how their work is shared. Artist can share their work without fear, their art alone can support them economically. So, copyright laws enabled art to develop into what it is today.
In general, intellectual property laws are a balancing act, trying to achieve the correct amount of protection. If too generous to the creators, then good ideas will take too long to copy, adapt, and spread. If too stingy then we won’t, see good ideas at all.
The second element we would like to talk about is the phrase “copying is an act of love”. This may be a form of question of the legitimacy of copyright laws, does it go too far? Some believe the more an art is copied, the more its admired. The question is where does the act of love because an act of violation? Charles Caled Colton says: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.
Show lessRead more
In this 3-thumbnails-long cartoon, we can see “Mimi & Eunice” discuss different IP law issues and its usefulness.
They first identify copyright law saying that without it being ensured, art wouldn’t exist. I partly agree with them in the sense that restricting copies of art pieces makes sure that the original author doesn’t get robbed of the limelight. However, we have seen many artists be highlighted after making a copy or remastering a famous piece of art. I don’t think that art wouldn’t exist without copyright law, nevertheless, it would be much less diverse.
In the second thumbnail, Mimi & Eunice say that inventions wouldn’t exist without patent law. Again, I partly agree with them. In my opinion, inventions would still exist but would be kept secret which would decrease their quality (the fact that more people reflect on one same project increases its quality as I see it).
Finally, in the last case, they talk about real estate and marriage law which differs a lot from IP law which is much more recent. Land and love existed before law regulating it in the sense that it didn’t need protection to fully exist (>< art and inventions that would be less common without protection).
Show lessRead more
(group: Lea Nchange, Romane Martin, Alice Adam, Adélia Caillet-Bois)
Intellectual property can be understood as the ownership of an exclusive right to a creation of the mind. Thus, meaning that there has been the materialization of an innovative or creative idea. Indeed, a cartoon is an artistic creation of the mind, it falls in consequence into the field of copyright law. When largely talking about cartoons, we can address two rationale of intellectual property:
Firstly, new ideas, such as the creation of cartoons, can flourish intellectual growth. When an artist creates and publishes a cartoon, he/she desires to share to the world a particular story, a unique style, and even a certain point of view. This starts a cycle of spreading knowledge, thus, leading to more creation and innovation. Thus, by making accessible his art, he/she has released something in society that represents him. This is the personality theory. Secondly, cartoons can also create economic growth. This is often used as the economic justification of intellectual property. Intellectual property must protect these creations in order for them to truly benefit society.
The cartoon in question puts forward the fear that if there was no copyright law, artists wouldn’t be known and get recognition for their work, as everyone could claim it’s theirs or reproduce it. Furthermore, it would diminish the incentive to create art, for the reasons stated above. Only this point of view omits the fact that many artists actually seek anonymity rather than recognition and without being able to copy artworks (to a certain extent), many artworks we know today wouldn’t have seen the light. Inspiration, however similar it can seem to be to the original work sometimes, is essential.
It then puts forward the fear that without patent law, inventions wouldn’t exist, for the similar reasons as stated previously. This belief doesn’t take into account that before patent law existed, inventions were made. And perhaps patent law and its exclusivity boosted competition regarding the making of inventions, but it surely isn’t the only thing that is keeping inventions from disappearing.
Finally, the last image of the cartoon mocks the two first ideas by hinting to the fact that it is not because something isn’t regulated that it won’t come to exist. It’s not because the creation of i.e. music isn’t regulated through copyright protection that no music will be made.
Show lessRead more
1) In our opinion the system of the patent is right, and copying must be forbidden because it would decrease creativity of people. Hiding them the benefits of their creativity would demotivate them to create news inventions and therefore would stop progress of humanity in important domain such medicine tools. But copying should be allowed in limited domain when it’s a matter of death of life for example we should allowed people to copy knowledge in domain for example in agriculture of geology to prevent disaster.
The cartoon uses satirical approach to our conception of Intellectual Property Law.First determined by French revolutions laws in the 18th century, we can define IPLaw as a set of regulations made in order to protect an individual’s intellectual work and creation.It exists in several forms such as patent ,right given to inventor to use it s invention or to preclude its use by other ,or copyright which is the right granted to the author of an artistic or literary work to use it or to preclude its use by other
Obviously art and inventions would exist without copyright or patents like love would still exist without marriage.Law is only a tool created by mankind to regulate human activities and in the case of intellectual properties law allowed a lot of things
.
On one hand we can address deontological justifications of it s use .We can start with the labour theory (John Locke s) that relates to everyone’s right to own property of their creation.
Secondly we can mention the personality theory ,of which Hegel’s name is associated, that explains that people can have a protection of their invention because it is an expression of personality.Lastly ,the fairness theory consists of saying that it is fair to give someone a reward because he nenrechises the society .
On the other hand Ip law are crucial to every author of any intellectual creation because they encourages creation and reward the efforts put into the work however one may wonder what are the limits of these laws in our present world where, for example, pharmaceutical industries jealously protect their products and thus put the brakes on advances that could change the lives of thousands.
Show lessThe rationale behind the intellectual property is to promote the creativity of the artists. Without copyright there would be no art, no incentive for new creation because artists would not make money.
Read more
First, it is important to understand what intellectual property law is. It is a set of rules allowing the protection of all intellectual products. Different categories can be distinguished: patent, copyright, trademark, design, trade secrets. These rights promote intellectual creation and inventions.
Thus, the intellectual property rights allow to conclude contracts as an inventor.
Then, we will comment each sentence in this cartoon.
« Without copyright law… art would not exist »
Copyright law refers to the rights that creators have over a work. These rights apply to literary, architectural, artistic works, etc. Therefore, art is subject to copyright law.
These rights allow the creator to receive financial compensation when his work is exploited by a third party. These rights also allow to protect the non-economic interests of the author.
Therefore, if the author is the owner of this economic right, he can prohibit or authorize certain acts on his work. For example, he can prohibit all reproductions of his work, its recording, its adaptation. Or on the contrary, he can decide to authorize these actions on his work.
Therefore, art can exist without copyright law. It is by no means forbidden to create an artistic work by this right. However, some artistic actions (readaptation, reproduction, etc.) can be forbidden by the author of the original work, benefiting from copyright.
« Without patent law … inventions would not exist »
The patent law is an exclusive right granted on an invention. The owner of a patent has the right to decide who can, and who cannot, use the invention during the term of protection (usually 20 years). It can be granted for inventions in all fields.
It is a right that is territorial and applies on the territory of Belgium, in our case.
Besides having a purely theoretical aspect, it also has a practical aspect. Inventions that have been patented can permeate all aspects of daily life.
Therefore, patents aim to encourage and protect individuals by allowing their creativity to be recognized and rewarded. To do this, patents are published so that one does not invent the same thing twice.
Indeed, the absence of patent law cannot strictly prevent someone from producing a new invention. That said, inventors would be discouraged from bringing new inventions to market since these exclusive rights allow them to obtain the expected benefits of their innovation activities.
The publication of patents even encourages the public to invent a competing product. Moreover, knowledge of inventions and progress allows society to evolve. The public interest benefits, which also encourages innovation.
« Without real estate law … land would not exist », « Without marriage law … love would not exist »
In a way, these sentences show that intellectual property rights are as important as real estate law or marriage law. Indeed, intellectual property rights are important in everyday life since all things are the product of an invention.
This also supports the sarcasm of this cartoon. Indeed, even if marriage law does not exist, that does not prevent love from existing. Marriage law and real estate law are a form of protection. It is not a condition for the existence of love and land.
To conclude, this last illustration confirms what we thought. Art and inventions can exist without intellectual property rights. Above all, they allow for the protection of artistic and new works. Through this protection, their existence is promoted.
Show lessRead more
Laws are there to protect rights, but if the laws disappeared, love, art, conceptions, … would always exist, as they have existed since the dawn of time.
More precisely about the intellectual property, the reason why this right exists is more about value the author, to be able to trace the work, and to make the artwork unique. Without copyrights, we would have less interets to make new art and to create in general because it is inherent to our human nature to associate our creations to our identity in order to be recognised.
Copyright also helps to not steal the work of others. Indeed, rights establish protection and limits to a particular framework.
Nevetheless, some people believe that copying is an act of love and recognition because it shows that the creation is appreciated and inspire others which is a good thing.
In conclusion, our group believe that copyright is like the other fields in law, it touched and framed something very natural and very human: the creation.
Read more
While any caterogy and set of laws needs to find its source in a human activity or a material good, as it was accurately illustrated in the cartoon, ones existence does not particularily depend on the other. By that, we imply that land, art, inventions and love would obviously still exist, regaldless if they are regulated or not. However, while real estate and marriage law provides protection when it comes to material goods, which are quite obvious matters most of the time, the subjects of invention and art are more abstract because ideas are not physicals objects, even though they could be manifested in the physical world, thus making them complex to define and organize.
How one could create a protection over an idea? The example shown above is a satire about copyright and patents, but truth is, protecting an idea is an extremely useful tool in today’s society, especially in an era of globalization and internet, where information is shared at the speed of light. History has shown that plagiarism is not a new phenomenon (a beautiful example would be the comparison between Michelangelo’s and Giorgio Vasari’s “Head of Cleopatra”, or Thomas Edison’s light bulb, which was proven to be not an original idea in the past, because that other scientists have already been testing this idea at the time).
Nowadays, especially as students who have to constantly write assignments, genuine and original content is extremely important, which explains why intellectual property is put on the same piedestal as any other property law. Intellectual property law is totally justified both on a small and bigger scale. The protection offered by patents and copyright law may not be as important for some, but when one spends a lot of time, energy and resources to put out an artwork or an invention, it is obviously very beneficial to include legal protection to the work, not only for compensation in case of idea theft, but also to protect oneself against these types of accusations aswell.
As a conclusion, we do agree that law and property (whether it is land, marriage, art or inventions) do not need one another to exist, but the advantages of combining them is far more beneficial nowadays, based on the arguments stated above.
Tatiana Deriouguina, Juliette Mathieu, John John Lepinoix, Elie Dessy and Rodrigue de Spirlet.
Show lessRead more
This cartoon relates to the essence of intellectual property law. In fact, it was initially created in order to protect creations and inventions. By doing so, intellectual property law inevitably promotes new artwork and industrial discoveries. It protects the authenticity of inventions.
The law guarantees that each creator gets recognition and may profit from its own labour, wich in turn drives individuals to keep creating. It is an organic cycle that moves on its own.
The three theories mentioned in class illustrate this.
First, the economic justifications or the market failure theory : intellectual property rights prevent creators and inventors from investing without monetary compensation, wich is undoublty a major incentive. It also avoids the risk of free riding : others enjoying one’s labour. There would be less creations without said incentives.
Second, there are deontological justifications that stem from the labour, personality and fairness theories.
The labour theory relates to everyone’s right to own the property of their creation.
The personality theory on the other hand relates to the creator’s wish to protect what came out of his own mind and is therefore an extension of his personality. One wouldn’t want to share a piece of himself only for it to be lost and anonymous.
Lastly, the fairness theory underlines how all earn a reward for the outcome of their own personal work.
In conclusion, intellectual property rights stimulate and incite everyone to unleash their imagination without fear of it being pointless and going to waste by losing its value and authenticity. One must understand the frustration that could be felt by witnessing others free riding and profiting or benefiting from you own effort. It takes time to come up with new ideas.
But despite all of this the last square of the cartoon reminds us that Art, Love, Land, etc. were not created by legal texts and have an independent existence of their own. Art existed prior to the creation of intellectual property law. The latter only brought a legal framework to protect it and ensure that they would continue to exist for a very long time.
Read more
Sara Boumansour, Margaux Caravella, Charline Solé, Amandine Van De Stadt, Clara Van Durme.
This cartoon is related to the Arrow information paradox. Indeed, intellectual property rights are important for contracts because if you have a new approach and you want to sell it, you might face an issue. The issue is that if someone is interested, he needs to know how the approach is working, but as soon as you tell how it works, the person already knows how the approach is working, but as soon as you tell how it works, the person already knows everything he had to know to produce it and everything related to the approach. There is no reason why he would pay for something that he already knows. This is why intellectual property law rights allow the disclosure of the information they are protecting and in consequence, to allow the contract to take place.
The absence of those rights would have dramatic consequences. It would lead to a market failure. Without protection, nobody would create or invest because there would have no point. For instance, if you try to find a new formula for a medicine but that there is no protection, you will work for several years, invest a lot of money and as soon as the product is on the market, all pharmaceutical companies can enjoy your research without any effort.
This cartoon gives a satirical approach of the intellectual property law. It denigrates and minimize the patents and copyright laws, but as we have seen, it’s fundamental to our economy. Those laws organize the art and its market. It’s the essence of art to inspire other artists, but it has to be done while respecting the creation of the author.
Show lessRead more
What can you find in a cartoon ? About the rationale of intellectual property
By Lacroix Astrid, Meert Alexandra, Seutin Théa, Smousse Zoé, Vandenbossche Barbara
On the one hand, art, inventions and even love would still exist without even copyright, patent, or marriage laws intervening. They are not necessarily dependent on each other since, in our opinion, artistic creation goes beyond any barrier that may be created by rules or formalities to be followed. Art is a spontaneous, free and varied activitiy which is ultimately a source of the human being. In addition, historically speaking, many works were developed long before laws to protect them emerged and some are still unforgettable. For example, the painting “Mona Lisa” by Leonardo da Vinci, created at the beginning of the 16th century, remains, even today, one of the most emblematic works of art in the world, even if it predates the beginnings of the copyright laws, which were actually determined by French revolution laws, in the 18th century.
On the other hand, this cartoon deals with serious problems of intellectual property through a satirical approach, derogating from their own principles and this with the aim of emphasizing the importance of copyright. Indeed, although copyright laws do not automatically create a work of art, they are nevertheless necessary for the protection of the original content offered by the artist as well as his interests. This makes it possible to avoid a reproduction, even a clear copy of the works created by the artists. But above all, they allow the sharing and dissemination of this creative content around the world and this is what makes art an enjoyable, rich and varied activity both economically and aesthetically.
Read more
What can you find in a cartoon about the rationale of IP law?
As we learnt in class, Intellectual property law is a group of rights which protects any human intellect’s products. There are some different types of Intellectual property rights like patents (which protect the inventions), copyright (which protects artistic works), …
The Intellectual property law has been created to encourage creators to to do, invent and create more. The authors are not unanimous about the justification of the Intellectual property rights and shields the authors, inventors, musicians, and artists from unauthorized use by others.
To illustrate that, different theories were developed. For example, one of those theories is that people can have their own property right according to the labour that they realized in order to obtain the invention (John Locke’s theory). Another example is the personality theory in which Hegel is the main representative, he explains that people can have a protection of their invention because it is an expression of personality. And the last example, is the fairness theory which formulates that it is fair to give someone a reward because he enriches the society. In summary, like Abraham Lincoln even said, “The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius”.
This cartoon is a satirical approach of the Intellectual property law because it deducts this law creates art or inventions. But the Intellectual property rights have not created the inventions, they encourage the authors to create them by protecting them from unauthorized use by others.
So, the regulations instituted by this right encourage people to do, invent and create more because they know that they are protected thanks to IP law. This shows the importance of IP law that shouldn’t be undermined. This cartoon exposes the idea that without those protections and regulations, creation would not exist, but we learned that even before IP law, art, inventions and creation already existed.
As a conclusion, we can say that IP law expended the number of inventions and creations.
Show lessRead more
AZMAR. I., DEROLOFFE. J., PONCELET. J-A., ARA. R., DRAOUI. L.
The cartoon on this blog pushes after its reading to various questions around intellectual property rights. Indeed, can we consider that the rights resulting from intellectual property are the only drivers of creation? Does the absence of intellectual property rights necessarily mean an absence of any form of creation?
Intellectual property rights play a major role. They make it possible to ensure the authors of creation of income or to ensure protection against possible counterfeits. In this way, by constituting a means of earning potential future income, intellectual property rights encourage creators, authors or even inventors to create. But does the very existence of these creations depend exclusively on the rights associated with them? In order to answer this question, it is possible to adopt several points of view.
The first point of view refers to one of the texts that we had to read in preparation for the first course “The great intellectual property trade-off”.
We can see there, the fact that the intellectual property right pushes each person to be creative. For example, in the United States several people have plagiarized the work of Charles Dickens, because they had no inspiration, and it was easier to plagiarize, because in the USA did not protect the copyright of those who were not citizens. In 1800, the UK was a powerful force in work culture and innovation, while the USA was far behind.
The fact of instituting this regime of intellectual property right, pushes to the innovations and the creation of new projects, that creates a form of originality.
Without copyrights, things would be a bit more complicated, because you wouldn’t know who owns the work, and it would discourage artists to produce new works.
The hypothesis where the absence of intellectual property rights does not constitute an obstacle to the creation or existence of art, books, concepts, etc., lives in the difference between professionals and amateurs. As we’ve said, one of the intellectual property rights’ purpose is to ensure an income to the authors of the creation, and to protect it against possible counterfeits. It’s useful mostly when the creation has a vocation to be public. Not every creation has vocation to be public, sometimes their authors want to keep it private, they don’t want to share it. Not every creation has either vocation to be lucrative. If we take the example of paintings, it can be a hobby, you paint because you want to, and you paint whatever you want without wanting to make a profit out of it. Therefore, the intellectual property rights do not constitute an obstacle to the creation because many examples such as royalty-free music or even certain collaborative platforms show that creation is not inherent in the rights associated with it.
In this cartoon, we clearly see that the one who draw it leans more towards the second opinion which says that the absence of IP rights doesn’t mean that creations, art, inventions are stopped or slowed down. When you look at the third case, you clearly see that he is making fun of the people that think that without IP rights, there is no art or inventions. He makes an analogy with real estate and the existence of lands and marriage law with love. These two existed before the law. This point of view, in our opinion, is questionable. Because IP rights are not necessary to the process of creation or invention, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be helpful in some ways. In this regard, it is really clear that in our societies, in order to create growth, we need breakthroughs and to encourage people to come with new ideas, there has to be some sort of rewards such as recognition because without it you are not motivated to create. The inventions, creations, etc. are used by the whole society so you need a little recognition. Here, we see that the creativity exists without the IP rights, but they help people to give life to their ideas, they make people feel more secure that nobody will steal their creation, that they will be rewarded, appreciated, they will feel valuable, and this is exactly what pushes people to share their ideas. Thus, you find the rationale of IP rights not in the fact that it gives you more creativity but in the fact that it motivates you as an individual to create and it serves the whole society.
Show lessRead more
This cartoon illustrates with a touch of humour the rationale of intellectual property and the importance of law in regulating that type of property. In the same way our legal system protects our physical assets it also protects our intangible ones such as invention…
Concerning the first two images of the cartoon, we disagree with a previous comment that states “without IP Laws things such as art and inventions would not exist”. In our view Art and inventions still exist without legal cover of what we call intellectual property laws.
However these laws as well as protecting the author’s right, create an incentive for further creations and their (broadcasting). These incentives help us by further develop our access to culture and our widespread knowledge. Without laws protecting our own creations, people would resort to other methods for instance keeping them within private circles or simply keeping them for themselves. Thus we wouldn’t have had access to literature, art,…
We should however take care so as not to create further constraints in our creativity by the elaboration of such laws.
Thank-you for reading.
– Teodora Pralea, Nermin Abu Soof, Ilham Akdim, Sophie Joret.
Show lessRead more
This cartoon illustrates and summarizes what we have learned in class so far. On that basis we can humbly define intellectual property law as the legal system/jurisdiction which handles the rules of securing and carrying out legal rights to artistic work, designs and inventions. In the same manner as the law protects ownership of personal property and real estate, it also protects the exclusive control of intangible assets as shown in the cartoon.
The grand goal of these laws is to motivate people to develop creative works that benefit society all by ensuring they can profit from their works without dreading that other people might steal or expropriate their labour. In other words, copyright laws function as incentives for artistic creation due to the financial gain these artists receive by creating and exhibiting. This is why, in the first box, the two characters say that art does not go without copyright, even if some countries do not enforce these laws.
Furthermore, we saw the notion of patents witch grant the inventors of an output the right to manoeuvre their product in the marketplace, or they can also make a financial profit of their creations by conveying that right to someone else (the length of the patent right depending on the type of invention).
Show lessRead more
El Zazi Hiba, Muberra Unlusoy, Atanessian Thierry
First, we can define Intellectual Property Law as a set of regulations made in order to protect an individual’s intellectual works and creations.
A Copyright is the right granted to the author of an artistic or literary work to use it or to preclude its use by others.
A patent is the right given to an inventor to use its invention or to preclude its use by others.
In this cartoon, we can clearly notice a sarcastic approach towards IP Law. Indeed, it is obvious that IP law does not create the content it protects just like real estate does not create land. Law overall is only a tool created by men in order to regulate several human activities that were already there before any set of regulations. Under no circumstances can we consider that Law precedes the activity it intends to protect. For example, Mankind was doing trade way before trade regulations were adopted.
However, we should not underestimate the importance of IP rights. Even though, IP law didn’t create intellectual or literary works, art, etc… It nevertheless gives significant protection that is crucial to every author of an intellectual creation. Indeed, without all the warranties given by IP rights, such as copyrights and patents, it would be much more difficult for authors to have their works protected. IP Law is thus a huge incentive for individuals to indulge in intellectual creation.
Show lessRead more
A such cartoon is really worth a thousand words!
In addition to the comments already published on this topic, this looks very interesting and revealing in view of the importance of intellectual property rights at the international economic crossroads. Undoubtedly, interdisciplinarity characterises even this idea of intellectual property since it is essential to achieve a fair balance between free international trade and the protection of artistic creations and inventions. It is only through this balance that scientific and technical progress can be encouraged, which will prove to be economically attractive and profitable, and will itself be the source of commercial transactions that are free of unfair practices against the authors of originality.
However, we don’t think that art wouldn’t exist without IP law but rather that art would be less developed than it is nowadays. Just like humans would still exist (or few of them) if there was no law. Nevertheless, we wouldn’t be as institutionalised, advanced, and serving the public interest if we didn’t make the “social contract” (as Rousseau and Locke believed). Therefore, IP Law is at a certain extent serving the public interest as it contributes to the protection of the economical development of the righters (with copyright law for instance). And in parallel, with a balanced protection and free access, IP law enables the other righters to take inspiration and dig further to become better. So, as already said above and going more deeper, a balanced protection through law isn’t a condition of existence of a field but a multiplying factor of the growth of society’s interests in sciences, art, and so on.
Furthemore, even at the individual level, the cartoon shows us that intellectual property law is widely present in many fields of our day-to-day life. There are various justifications and theories that try to identify the reasons for the existence of these rights : the aim may be to protect the ideal of fairness, by rewarding those who work hard to improve the society. Some authors, for their part, think with a pure economic vision. Many more justifications are defended but it appears quite obviously that these IP law rights are currently crucial in our society.
To conclude, the fruits of the intellectual have always existed and have not waited for intellectual property to be made. The allegory with the love and the land is very telling! These three branches of laws are, in our opinion, only regulating factual circumstances that have a central place in our daily lives. The parody about the notice shows that copyright is not a regime where severity, exclusivity reign, on the contrary it is a way of sharing. Moreover, IP law pushes men to surpass themselves via an economic reasoning certainly, but without these some crucial social revolutions would simply not exist.
Show lessRead more
At a first glance, you could take the two first squares literally: without IP laws things such as art and inventions would not exist. When we read the last square, we realize that thinking like that is ridiculous: love, land, art and inventions can and do exist without IP laws. IP laws limit the free usage of information so that an inventor or an artist can benefit from their creation but doesn’t create them. By limiting the usage, people still have an incentive to create.
In conclusion, the first two squares make us believe that IP laws condition the existence of art and inventions but when we read the last square, we realize that art, inventions, land etc. exist without IP laws and they are only there to regulate the usage of these practices.
Read more
This cartoon illustrates what we saw during classes about the variety of IP laws. Even if, there is one common name for IP law, patents, copyrights and Trademark should not be confused and have actually not much in common.
Those IP laws have developed separately in order to protect different types of subject matters.
This cartoon also illustrates the fact that IP law was developed at first in order to create an incentive on inventors to develop and share new ideas with the rest of society and thus encourage progress. When the character thus says « without copyright law » and the other answers « art would not exist » this illustrates what we saw during classes about how artist shares their work because they know it will be protected and they do not fear unlimited copy of their hard work.
This reasoning is the same with the other IP laws.
Read more
Intellectual property rights are legal tools that apply to intangible property and confer them exclusivity. In this analysis, we will try to characterise the rationale behind the intellectual property by focusing on copyright and patent law.
Regarding copyright, it ensures certain minimum safeguards of the rights of authors over their creations, thereby protecting and rewarding creativity. The purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of art by protecting the exclusive right of authors and inventors to benefit from their works of authorship. Copyright is an essential mechanism for how an artist gets paid and protects his or her work. Without copyright an artist could not make money. Thus Copyright law ensures the durability of art. If there were no copyright laws it would have become very hard to protect the interest of artists and it could discourage them to a very large extent.
As far as the patents are concerned, they promote innovation by allowing the inventor to recoup his investments. Patent (and other IPRs) rights “should contribute o the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge” (Art. 7 TRIPS). You see that IP and patent should contribute to technological invention and the transfers of those to other countries. A patent is important because it can help safeguard your invention. It can protect any product, design or process that meets certain specifications according to its originality, practicality, suitability, and utility.
In conclusion, the main purpose of intellectual property law is to encourage the creation of a wide variety of intellectual goods for consumers. To achieve this, the law gives people and businesses property rights to the intellectual goods they create.
Show lessRead more
The rationale behind IP rights is to protect the inventions of artists for their creations. IP law is aimed at encouraging these creators to go on with their inventions, so it’s an incentive for new ideas. Without IP rights, creators would have no financial incentive for their productions – therefore slowing down the production of new ideas. With the advantage provided by the IP rights, to the inventor, this will advance further researches.
Without copyright, there would be no art, because there would be no incentives for artists to make new creations – they would not make money without it. Therefore, copyrights also promote new innovations and progress, thanks to the financial benefits of it. Copyrights give credit to the creators.
Without patent law, there would be no inventions because these laws protect the inventor from other people copying the invention. Patents are a sort of reward; they give credit to the inventor for its creativity. Patent laws prevent others from benefiting from the income that the invention generates.
The last square shows people exaggerating the use of the intellectual property, conditioning the existence of anything with an intellectual property law. And that is why we created formalities and conditions in which the intellectual property could be applied, to avoid an over protection and complication of everything.
To conclude, we as a group think that intellectual property laws are essential in order to rewards creators for their efforts and money investments, and thus encouraging them to invent new things. However, IP rights should only be given to inventors, and should not be used in every aspect of life. IP rights should be limited to inventions, but if they were to be used for everything, it would be counter-productive and would make thing too “rigid”.
Show lessRead more
A lot of cartoons may be quite sarcastic. This allows us to say that even though the cartoon here looks like it is selling the merits of IP rights, it is also an indirect critic of it. We have to read between the lines. Let’s comment on the rationale of IP rights from an economic perspective, then from a deontological point of view.
Then let’s finish with a divergent viewpoint that considers the denunciatory side and looks below the surface of this cartoon.
From an economic perspective, the picture seems to say that IP rights allow several things to exist, such as art, inventions, land, and even love. These are all different objects of the economy, and we can say that IP rights allow the economy to work on a good basis.
“Without copyright law, art would not exist”: indeed, what motivates a movie producer to create a movie, a musician to release an album or a painter to expose his paintings? The economic rendering that will result from it. The advantage of this is that IP rights protect artists by avoiding free riding. It motivates them to create so that they can live off what they did with their hands. It’s the theory of incentive where the artists are incentivized to be creative and innovative because they know that their product is protected by the law and it’s crucial for the market that needs scarcity to work well. This is also why they will be able to live off their art because their product is protected, and they can sell it to allow other people to benefit from it.
Nevertheless, IP rights also have disadvantages. As said in the cartoon, “Without patent law, inventions would not exist”? It is true, but it may lead to abuse. We all know the example of Covid-19 vaccines: some companies are content with the economic aspect of patents and stop at this point, at the expense of the general interest. Some countries can’t create vaccines because they are stopped by big companies’ patents. The problem there is that too much protection is a bad thing for the economy, and it leads to market failure because there’s a blockage of innovation.
The solution for that is to search for an adequate level of protection.
However, copyright allows more creation and recognition, on the other side, it limits the creation. For example, by creating a new kind of tactile screen, Apple stops via their patterns, other compagnies to create inventions that will closely look the same. Some inventors will limit their work to avoid being accused of plagiarism, even if they bring new things to the industry.
In a deontological perspective, art demands a workload, which is not especially linked to the willingness to make money but more linked to the proportion of time passed on it, the reflection, the artist’s personality reflexion. Delete the IP Law – copyright and patterns, .. – will reduce the will to create, because intellectual property creates a secure framework for artists and allows a certain recognition. IP rights law allows the growth of art because it’s made to be shared. The cartoon says that art would not exist without CR, this is hyperbole: art is meant to be shared so if it is not shared it does not exist.
Finally, from a more denunciatory perspective, let us analyse this cartoon which highlights some of the criticisms that can be made of intellectual property.
Intellectual property and its laws such as copyright, real estate and patent laws present themselves as the source of what they protect.
They would be the sine qua non of their existence. “Without copyrights laws… Art would not exist”: this sentence suggests that without the protection and legal security they provide, art, love, inventions or the earth could not exist and serve the general interest. However, doesn’t this cartoon tend to show that their rationale is to serve and protect these notions and not to be the instigators of them ?
Art or love are not concepts that can be categorized and reduced to rights and obligations. No doubt many marriages are loveless, and many lovers are unmarried.
As for art, isn’t its purpose to convey a message, to make people think, to shock or to amaze ? Of course, the artists’ rent has to be paid and recognition of their work is important, but it is doubtful that the artist’s primary motivation is financial.
The author of this cartoon invites people to share his drawing and describes it as an act of love. Doesn’t this show that his motivation is to circulate his drawing so that his message reaches a large number of people (encouraging free riding since his message is intended to spread).
The earth exists whether or not it is appropriated by man. The ideas, innovations and creations that have brought mankind to where it is now did not wait for the individual to serve the progress, advancement and creation of the society we live in.
This drawing could also denounce the dimension that intellectual property has taken in our society where capitalism and globalisation prevail.
Indeed, the current intellectual property regime tends to serve large companies that wish to assert their monopoly on the market by extending as much as possible the rights and benefits that these patents and copyrights give them.
This regime is in fact moving in the direction of a monopoly of intellectual rights held by all these large corporations for whom the main motivation is profit well before the general interest. Indeed, if it does not encourage the creation of new inventions, it locks up and makes it long, difficult and costly to implement innovative ideas, since it restricts access to information that is intended to be the basis of many possibilities that could bring great advances for the general interest.
We can take the example of drugs and scientific advances in treatment. If all the pharmaceutical companies (which remain companies that aim for profit well before the altruistic goal of helping people to heal), jealously guard their juicy discoveries for themselves, how can they claim to want to keep intellectual property for the general interest. Obviously, they should be able to earn their investments (fairness theory), pay back their spending, their employees and satisfy their shareholders. However, these companies are now worth billions of dollars while not allowing any advancement for the sake of research and good health of all people.
This is also true during the current pandemic where the formula for vaccines that despite the deaths and crises, is not given to countries that cannot afford it for their population which is directly exposed to the ravages of the virus and its repercussions.
The pockets of Pfizer are now filled with billions of euros and one can be sure that they expect to make a profit from this vaccine to the last crumb, regardless of the lives at stake.
To conclude, although property offers advantages (legal security, intellectual recognition, etc.), in our world currently corrupted by lobbying and the quest for profit at any price, it has disadvantages that should push us to review the intellectual property law regime so that it corresponds to the challenges and issues of our society.
Show lessRead more
Alice Baruh, Margot Littlefair, Arnaud Michiels, Sibylle Moulin, Zoé van den Bossche
Whilst analysing this caricature, we, as a group, have come up with 2 conceptions of the meaning behind it. The first one is what we understand as the “positive” conception, and the second one is understood as the “negative” one (which is the concept that we will elaborate the most on).
The first conception of this caricature.
On the one hand, art, literature, music, inventions, etc. would be nothing without IP rights. Twisted the other way around: art, literature, inventions, etc. are only existent thanks to IP rights. We basically owe it all to IP right. If IP rights did not exist, perhaps none of the aforementioned creations would ever have existed.
The second conception of this caricature.
On the other hand, given that this is after all a caricature, we think that there could also be an overemphasis on the different forms of intellectual property protection. We tend to believe that patents, or more generally copyrights are the reason why inventions, art, literature etc. have succeeded in developing over the years. The last speech bubble of the caricature illustrates the irony we’re trying to put forward by showing that a particular field of invention, art, etc. doesn’t necessarily have to be regulated by law to be recognized as such. Therefore, contrary to the first meaning, it’s not copyright that consecrates the title of “art” to art – art’s existence is independent from IP rights.
The exaggeration of IP rights’ importance can also be noted through the fact that, as we saw in one of the first readings of this course, they did the exact opposite of what they were supposed to and ended up slowing down the creation of new inventions (James Watt). The IP rights were too rigid, so much so that new possibilities could no longer pierce the surface.
Show lessRead more
In this illustration, Alain Strowel depicts intellectual property as indispensable to the very existence of the notion of owning works, creations or even real estate.
Let’s nuance this statement.
It is true that the mechanisms of copyright, patent and ownership offer us legal security, both personally, as owners, and for our properties. Thus, no one can afford to acquire our property or our recognition as creators and owners. In short, intellectual property laws protect our works and legitimize our status as owners.
However, are these laws really indispensable to creation, art or the real estate market? Yes and no. Yes, in our modern and intransigent society, the fact of rewarding an artist, an owner and recognizing him as such, stimulates thousands of people in the world to acquire and create, because they know they are protected by the law. Nevertheless, art or innovation existed long before all these legal protections and the owners were still recognized. Certainly, without the creation of these legal processes, the development and the unbridled rhythm of inventions would not have been the same as today, but it would still have existed. The most telling example is the one that the author himself caricatures in his drawing, love. However, love existed long before the marriage contract and will continue to exist even without.
Show lessRead more
What can you find in a cartoon about the rationale of IP law?
Before answering the question, it is interesting to first define the term cartoon. The word cartoon means any “drawing or other depiction of an object, person, animal, creature or any similar caricature that satisfies any of the following criteria: the use of comically exaggerated features ; the attribution of human characteristics or extra human abilities to animals, plants etc.”(Ross V. Beutel ).
When we see a cartoon, we naturally associate it with an artistic creation, this creation was expressed and conceptualized by someone who turned his/her idea into an individual production.
A cartoon (including its characters) can be protected by copyright law.
Without copyright protection, art wouldn’t exist, anyone would have the possibility to recreate and to appropriate someone else’s work by just copying an idea/concept. In that case, every human could pretend to be an artist/creator. But what do we mean by being an artist? An artist is someone who” professes and practices an art in which conception and execution are governed by imagination and taste (…)A person of special skill or ability in a particular field” ( Corpus Juris Secondum Vol. 6A). This protection by copyright will allow individuals to have recognition for their art, but also to be able to derive some monetary value from it, so they can be rewarded for their work. Intellectual rights allow and protect the development of personality, which extends to material things since a person also incorporates part of his or her personality into the creation. The main objective of copyright is to ensure that the work of an artist will not be used without the author’s permission (if the work is copyrighted). Creators can then register their cartoons on their national copyright offices so they can act and file suits against the infringement of their rights.
This guarantee of protection goes hand-in-hand with the willingness to innovate and to invest time and resources especially if we know that the result of our work won’t be easily stolen. So, a right level of protection maximizes the incentive to create while enabling others to develop and improve their work. This is for the common good and it participates to the evolution of society, we want to make art accessible but in the same way we also must protect artists. Indeed, intellectual property rights create some sort of legally excludability (theory of incentive) by excluding several people from accessing a piece of information (the piece of information becomes excludible).
A cartoon (and its label) can also be protected by trademark law.
Some cartoons are strictly produced and shared by individuals while other cartoons belong to TV channels, labels, corporations such as Netflix, Disney, Webtoon… This means that some of them will be part of a company characterized by a logo, an expression, or any recognizable sign. As for trademark, it not only makes property excludible while still allowing it to be distributed but also protects everything that will identify the source of a cartoon, we can mention some examples such as the Mickey logo of a Disney animation or the sound produced when a Netflix movie is about to start…
To conclude, we believe that copyright is interesting from the creator’s point view allowing him to make his property excludible while still allowing it to be distributed. This creates a certain balance between these different interests and provides some sort of proportionality. Trademark also plays an important role by protecting the sources diffusing these cartoons and making brands recognizable and differentiated (Disney cartoons are recognizable by their logo, Webtoons are recognized for their digital diffusion etc.).
Through this concrete example, we can truly understand the tremendous influence of intellectual property rights that now facilitates the free flow of information but also participates to the process leading to market innovation.
– Aya Sadik, Valida Taghizade, Gaelle Twt, Valentine Boon et Emma Van Camp,
Show lessRead more
Concerning copyright law, it is only a protective measure. Art existence’s does not rely on the existence of the copyright. If so, what about before the existence of the Copyright in 1790 (first copyright Act adopted in the US)? It is better to have one to secure your art nowadays.
Concerning patent law, it is also a protective measure. It is a milestone in the recognition of everyone’s invention.
It already existed in 6th century AD about the food recipes that were public but stayed the property of the author, it was then legalized in 1977 with the patent convention (EU).
In a nutshell, it is easy to notice that this cartoon enhances the stereotypes that the society and us, as law students, might have before following the IPL course.
(Kamila Koc, Amani el Khatib, Amine Ftouh Gzenay, Sabrina Vandewalle, Eva Fouss)
Read more
First of all, it is a nice point that is being made in this cartoon, it underlines how the law is this intangible backbone to society. It is always there impacting our lives whether we realize it or not. This drawing goes hand in hand with the legalists’ view on life and society. But when you think about it, isn’t it presumptuous to assume the law should get all the credit for the existence of things such as Art, inventions, property, or even love?
Of course, we can’t rule out the net advantages a sturdy legal system provides, it protects your creative process, your belongings, it gives you exclusivity on what you create. There is definitely a fascinating aspect to it, after all, it is one of humankind’s great achievements.
So really, what came first? the chicken or the egg? In a state that respects the rule of law, it fits with the predominant legalist view to believe the law is this unique utopian source to what mankind now is. We want to believe that we live in a carefully laid out world, where everything we could do has been taken into consideration by the legislator, in order to create a perfect body of law. As if, before law such human accomplishments and interactions didn’t exist.
As much as it would be cool for the law to be this magical source of everything. It’s important to come back to the essence of what this is all about, and recognize the organic nonlinear path of humanity that the law is ever still trying to grasp and rationalize. Because when it comes to creation, art, love, isn’t it more of an innate germ stemming out of people that have been given recognition and protection in our society? It is important to remind ourselves of this relation between the organic happening that is mankind and the rational monism of the legal system. Because after all it just comes to the creation or love, something pure in essence, we shouldn’t lose sight of it amidst the behemoth that the law is.
Show less