Unlike most other goods, people demand manner non for the added value or characteristic that a new point brings but for its ain interest. Peoples largely females of all ages pour over magazines demoing the latest famous person manners and so travel out to retail manner shows or browse online in hunt of something similar. This planetary concern has brought with it many legal issues.
Theories of Intellectual Property William Fisher The term "intellectual property" refers to a loose cluster of legal doctrines that regulate the uses of different sorts of ideas and insignia. Patent law protects inventions and some kinds of discoveries.
Trademark law protects words and symbols that identify for consumers the goods and services manufactured or supplied by particular persons or firms.
Trade-secret law protects commercially valuable information soft-drink formulas, confidential marketing strategies, etc. The economic and cultural importance of this collection of rules is increasing rapidly.
The fortunes of many businesses now depend heavily on intellectual-property rights. A growing percentage of the legal profession specializes in intellectual-property disputes.
And lawmakers throughout the world are busily revising their intellectual-property laws. Partly as a result of these trends, scholarly interest in the field has risen dramatically in recent years.
In law reviews and in journals of economics and philosophy, articles deploying "theories" of intellectual property have proliferated. This essay canvasses those theories, evaluates them, and considers the roles they do and ought to play in lawmaking.
A Preliminary Survey Most of the recent theoretical writing consists of struggles among and within four approaches.
Pursuit of that end in the context of intellectual property, it is generally thought, requires lawmakers to strike an optimal balance between, on one hand, the power of exclusive rights to stimulate the creation of inventions and works of art and, on the other, the partially offsetting tendency of such rights to curtail widespread public enjoyment of those creations.
The distinctive characteristics of most intellectual products, Landes and Posner argue, are that they are easily replicated and that enjoyment of them by one person does not prevent enjoyment of them by other persons.
Those characteristics in combination create a danger that the creators of such products will be unable to recoup their "costs of expression" the time and effort devoted to writing or composing and the costs of negotiating with publishers or record companiesbecause they will be undercut by copyists who bear only the low "costs of production" the costs of manufacturing and distributing books or CDs and thus can offer consumers identical products at very low prices.
Awareness of that danger will deter creators from making socially valuable intellectual products in the first instance. We can avoid this economically inefficient outcome by allocating to the creators for limited times the exclusive right to make copies of their creations.
The creators of works that consumers find valuable — that is, for which there are not, in the opinions of consumers, equally attractive substitutes — will be empowered thereby to charge prices for access to those works substantially greater than they could in a competitive market.
All of the various alternative ways in which creators might be empowered to recover their costs, Landes and Posner contend, are, for one reason or another, more wasteful of social resources.
This utilitarian rationale, they argue, should be — andfor the most part, has been — used to shape specific doctrines within the field.
Trademarks, Landes and Posner claim, also have an unusual ancillary social benefit: To be sure, trademarks can sometimes be socially harmful — for example, by enabling the first entrant into a market to discourage competition by appropriating for itself an especially attractive or informative brand name.
Awareness of these benefits and harms should and usually doesLandes and Posner claim, guide legislators and judges when tuning trademark law; marks should be and usually are protected when they are socially beneficial and not when they are, on balance, deleterious.6 Managing Creative Enterprises PREAMBLE The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is pleased to present this new Creative Industries booklet focusing on the management of .
In an article titled, Scenes from the Colonial Catwalk: Cultural Appropriation, Intellectual Property Rights, and Fashion, Shand explains that cultural appropriation has long been rooted in.
Intellectual property rights include patents, copyright, industrial design rights, Recently there has also been much debate over the desirability of using intellectual property rights to protect cultural heritage, the American film industry helped to change the social construct of .
Fast Fashion and IP Regulation: Will Fast Fashion Kill the Golden Goose? through clearance studies and associated counseling and opinion work. but also protecting the intellectual property that these alliances create and exploit. Top^ Information Technology. Papers considered a wide range of case studies pertaining to intellectual property rights (IPR) laws in national and international frameworks, the challenges to the enforcement of the law, and the lived effects of the law on the ground.
Cultural appropriation is controversial in the fashion industry due to the belief that some trends commercialise and cheapen the ancient heritage of indigenous cultures.
There is debate about whether designers and fashion houses understand the history behind the clothing they are taking from different cultures, besides the ethical issues of using these cultures' shared intellectual property.