3,856 research outputs found
Dr. Matthew Rimmer takes a closer look at Fair Use
No full text*This article is free to read on the publisher's website*\ud
\ud
For this week's Favorites of the Week, Dr. Matthew Rimmer wanted to focus in on some of the specific points that came up in the Congressional hearing on fair use earlier this week. While a bit different than our usual "favorites of the week" post, it's a really fantastic in-depth look at some of the issues, which I'm sure many of you will enjoy
Leisure moments [music] : waltz /
No full textCover title.; Features portrait of A. R. Rimmer on cover.; Portrait of Audrey Drew on cover.; "The waltz success as featured by Leon do Mauny over 2YA Wellington (N.Z.)" -- Cover.; "Featured by Audrey Drew, popular Adelaide broadcasting artist"--Cover.; Also available online http://nla.gov.au/nla.mus-vn884226; N, MUSM142235
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Halloween horror-show
No full textThe latest draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, released by WikiLeaks, is a literal Mickey Mouse agreement, writes Dr Matthew Rimmer, associate professor at ANU college of law
Intellectual Property, Indigenous Knowledge, and Climate Change
No full textIndigenous communities have been hard hit by the impacts of environmental degradation, biodiversity and climate change. Carold Betzold and Anaid Flesken have observed:\ud
\ud
'About 300 million people belong to one of the roughly 5,000 Indigenous peoples worldwide. While their ecological footprint is very small, Indigenous peoples tend to be disproportionately affected by environmental problems, for they tend to live in sensitive ecosystems, are closely related to, and directly depend on the natural environment and its resources. Environmental degradation hence compounds the already difficult situation of Indigenous peoples, who typically suffer from problems such as poverty, marginalisation, discrimination, and exclusion from policy-making processes.'\ud
\ud
There has a particular concern about the impact of climate change and global warming upon Indigenous communities and their lands, territories, natural resources and associated traditional knowledge.\ud
\ud
There have been fierce debates over intellectual property, the environment, and climate change in a range of international fora. The question of the protection of Indigenous intellectual property and traditional knowledge has emerged during these international discussions. There has been a significant fragmentation of the global governance of intellectual property, climate change, and Indigenous knowledge
Introduction: Mapping Indigenous Intellectual Property
No full textThe United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 provides a broad, holistic definition of Indigenous intellectual property. The preamble took the view that 'respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment.' Article 31 (1) provides a broad recognition of Indigenous intellectual property:\ud
\ud
'Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.'\ud
\ud
Article 31 (2) stipulates: 'In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.
The legacy of David Unaipon
No full textThe historical case of David Unaipon is a good starting point for a wider discussion of Indigenous intellectual property law, practice and reform. His story is a microcosm of larger battles over the cultural appropriation of Indigenous culture, iconography and science. David Unaipon could be seen as a beneficiary of intellectual property law. He is a creator of copyright works; an inventor of patented inventions; and an iconic figure, worthy of personality rights. His creative and scientific work has been an inspiration for others. David Unaipon could also be seen as being disenfranchised by intellectual property law. He lost ownership of his economic rights in respect of literary works; and his moral rights have not been respected under copyright law. His case also highlights the deficiencies of copyright law in respect of its failure to provide comprehensive recognition of communal authorship and ownership of copyright works. While he was a patent applicant, David Unaipon never seemed to have benefitted from the patent system. His experience raises questions about access to justice. The government and commercial use of the persona of David Unaipon raises complex questions about trade mark law, passing off and personality rights. The story of David Unaipon highlights the need for the systematic and holistic reformation of intellectual property law, so that it better serves Indigenous communities and peoples
William Rimmer: Teaching Art
No full textRarely do we find an artist, physician, and educator all in the same person. Yet this describes William Rimmer (1816-1879). He doesn’t fit into common historical narratives and can’t be contained in a single discipline. Scholarship since his death has largely focused on and interprets his work through the lens of his enigmatic personality and family history. Yet accounts of Rimmer during his lifetime tell other, even more compelling stories. Newspapers were fascinated with the unique combination of science and imagination found in his art. Many were mesmerized by what and how he taught at places such as the Lowell Institute in Massachusetts and the Female School of Design at Cooper Union in New York. Aside from the artists who came from around the country, all types of people attended Rimmer’s classes and lectures on what he called “Art Anatomy.” The majority of his students were women, who were, like Rimmer, acknowledged for their work during the period, but have remained largely absent from our histories.
Through Rimmer, we gain insight into nineteenth-century art, science, and education, and more specifically the professionalization of women artists, public lecturing, and performance culture, to cite just a few examples. Foregrounding his teaching, this project seeks to reveal Rimmer at the center of a complex and extensive network of individuals, institutions, and ideas. Rimmer is part of two “lineages” not often discussed in histories of nineteenth-century American art: that of artist-educators and artists for whom the body was central to their expression and their primary medium of meaning making and theory production. Looking closely at Rimmer allows us to reconsider and expand established stories of American art, education, and history.
This dissertation proposes that Rimmer’s art and teaching were intimately intertwined. In both, Rimmer emphasized the importance of guiding and engaging the participant and leaving space for her own imagination, experiences, and questions. Looking closely at Rimmer’s approaches and philosophy can help us reimagine the role of art and educators
The World Indigenous Network: Rio+20, intellectual property, sustainable development, and the future we want
No full textThe United Nations Rio 20 summit has raised a number of difficult questions about law, culture and technology: what is the relationship between intellectual property, the environment and climate change? What role does intellectual property play in sustainable development? Who will own and control the Green Economy? What is the best way to encourage the transfer of environmentally sound technologies? What are the respective roles of the public sector and the private sector in green innovation? How should biodiversity, traditional knowledge and Indigenous intellectual property be protected? Should there be due acknowledgment of the position of small island states, particularly those situated in the Pacific
The doomsday vault: Seed banks, food security, and climate change
No full text"It could easily provide the back-drop for a James Bond movie. Deep inside a mountain near the North Pole, down a fortified tunnel, and behind airlocked doors in a vault frozen to -18 degrees Celsius, scientists are squirreling away millions of seed samples. The samples constitute the very foundation of agriculture, the biological diversity needed so the world's major food crops can adapt to the next pest or disease, or to climate change. It's little wonder that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault has captured the public's imagination more than almost any agricultural topic in recent years. Popular press reports about the ‘Doomsday Vault,’ however, typically mask the complexity of the endeavor and, if anything, underestimate its practical utility." Cary Fowler\ud
\ud
This chapter considers the use of seed banks to address concerns about intellectual property, climate change and food security. It has a number of themes. First of all, it is interested in the use of ‘Big Science’ projects to address pressing global scientific concerns and Millennium Development Goals. Second, it highlights the increasing use of banks as a means of managing both property and intellectual property across a wide range of fields of agriculture and biotechnology. Third, it considers the linkage of intellectual property, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. There are a variety of positions in this debate. Some see requirements in respect of access to genetic resources and benefit sharing as an inconvenient burden for science and commerce. Others defend access to genetic resources and benefit sharing as meaningful and productive. Those inclined to somewhat more conspiratorial views suggest that access to genetic resources and benefit sharing are a ruse to facilitate biopiracy.\ud
\ud
This chapter has a number of components. Section I focuses upon the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) network – often raised as a model for Climate Innovation Centres. Section II considers the Svalbard Global Seed Vault – the so-called Doomsday Vault. After a consideration of the World Summit on Food Security in 2009, it is concluded in this chapter that any future international agreement on climate change needs to address intellectual property, plant genetic resources and food security
Inventing life: Intellectual property and the new biology
No full textIn 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a report on A New Biology for the 21st Century. The council preferred the term ‘New Biology’ to capture the convergence and integration of the various disciplines of biology. The National Research Council stressed: ‘The essence of the New Biology, as defined by the committee, is integration—re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems.’ They define the ‘New Biology’ as ‘integrating life science research with physical science, engineering, computational science, and mathematics’. The National Research Council reflected:\ud
\ud
'Biology is at a point of inflection. Years of research have generated detailed information about the components of the complex systems that characterize life––genes, cells, organisms, ecosystems––and this knowledge has begun to fuse into greater understanding of how all those components work together as systems. Powerful tools are allowing biologists to probe complex systems in ever greater detail, from molecular events in individual cells to global biogeochemical cycles. Integration within biology and increasingly fruitful collaboration with physical, earth, and computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are making it possible to predict and control the activities of biological systems in ever greater detail.'\ud
\ud
The National Research Council contended that the New Biology could address a number of pressing challenges. First, it stressed that the New Biology could ‘generate food plants to adapt and grow sustainably in changing environments’. Second, the New Biology could ‘understand and sustain ecosystem function and biodiversity in the face of rapid change’. Third, the New Biology could ‘expand sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels’. Moreover, it was hoped that the New Biology could lead to a better understanding of individual health: ‘The New Biology can accelerate fundamental understanding of the systems that underlie health and the development of the tools and technologies that will in turn lead to more efficient approaches to developing therapeutics and enabling individualized, predictive medicine.’\ud
\ud
Biological research has certainly been changing direction in response to changing societal problems. Over the last decade, increasing awareness of the impacts of climate change and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels can be seen to have generated investment in fields such as biofuels, climate-ready crops and storage of agricultural genetic resources. In considering biotechnology’s role in the twenty-first century, biological future-predictor Carlson’s firm Biodesic states: ‘The problems the world faces today – ecosystem responses to global warming, geriatric care in the developed world or infectious diseases in the developing world, the efficient production of more goods using less energy and fewer raw materials – all depend on understanding and then applying biology as a technology.’\ud
\ud
This collection considers the roles of intellectual property law in regulating emerging technologies in the biological sciences. Stephen Hilgartner comments that patent law plays a significant part in social negotiations about the shape of emerging technological systems or artefacts:\ud
\ud
'Emerging technology – especially in such hotbeds of change as the life sciences, information technology, biomedicine, and nanotechnology – became a site of contention where competing groups pursued incompatible normative visions. Indeed, as people recognized that questions about the shape of technological systems were nothing less than questions about the future shape of societies, science and technology achieved central significance in contemporary democracies. In this context, states face ongoing difficulties trying to mediate these tensions and establish mechanisms for addressing problems of representation and participation in the sociopolitical process that shapes emerging technology.'\ud
\ud
The introduction to the collection will provide a thumbnail, comparative overview of recent developments in intellectual property and biotechnology – as a foundation to the collection. Section I of this introduction considers recent developments in United States patent law, policy and practice with respect to biotechnology – in particular, highlighting the Myriad Genetics dispute and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos. Section II considers the cross-currents in Canadian jurisprudence in intellectual property and biotechnology. Section III surveys developments in the European Union – and the interpretation of the European Biotechnology Directive. Section IV focuses upon Australia and New Zealand, and considers the policy responses to the controversy of Genetic Technologies Limited’s patents in respect of non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. Section V outlines the parts of the collection and the contents of the chapters
- …
