372 research outputs found
Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy Report: Statement on Intellectual Property Rights and Open Access relevant to the digitization and restitution of African Cultural Heritage and associated materials
No full textThis is the final versionThe French language version of this report is available in ORE at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/36769Written by Mathilde Pavis and Andrea Wallace and signed by 108 scholars and practitioners working in the fields of intellectual property law and material and digital cultural heritage at universities, heritage institutions and organizations around the world, this Response argues in support of undertaking further research and designing a more nuanced strategy around the digitization of African Cultural Heritage as recommended by the Sarr-Savoy Report submitted to the French Government in 2018. While the Sarr-Savoy Report goes into great detail about the important issues surrounding restitution, it includes very little about digitization, IP rights, and open access, which raises a number of concerns reviewed in the Response. Accordingly, the Sarr-Savoy Report’s recommendations for the digitization and management of cultural content must be critically examined. This Response urges the French Government to do so before proceeding with restitution
Contemporary ICH: between community and market
No full textThis chapter argues that we should be wary of assuming that the "authorized heritage discourse", as embodied in things like the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage (CICH), correctly identifies what is intangible cultural heritage or properly protects it. These problems are particularly acute in relation to intangible cultural heritage as a contemporary
phenomenon, which not only presents an intrinsic challenge to the authorized heritage discourse but also seems particularly likely to have some overlap with the type of cultural creativity that is subject
to the competing protection of the intellectual property regime. In order to analyse these issues, this chapter is divided into three substantive parts. The first attempts to lay down some parameters for the concept of contemporary intangible cultural heritage. The second part measures these parameters against the international legal superstructure, in which the authorized heritage discourse might be regarded as finding its particular expression. And in the third part the relationship between contemporary intangible cultural heritage and intellectual property rights is considered
Réponse au Rapport Sarr-Savoy : Déclaration sur la numérisation, les droits de propriété intellectuelle et le libre accès du patrimoine culturel africain et des archives connexes
No full textThis is the final versionThe English language version of this report is available in ORE at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/36770Soutenues par 108 universitaires et praticiens spécialistes du droit de la propriété intellectuelle et du patrimoine culturel au sein d’universités, d’institutions et d’organisations du patrimoine à travers le monde, Mathilde Pavis et Andrea Wallace répondent au Rapport Sarr-Savoy soumis au gouvernement français en 2018. Cette réponse souligne la nécessité pour le gouvernement français d’entreprendre davantage de recherches sur les questions de numérisation, de droit de propriété intellectuelle et de libre accès dans le cadre de la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain. Le rapport Sarr-Savoy décrit les problèmes juridiques et éthiques liés à la restitution en détail, mais ne traite de la numérisation, les droits de propriété intellectuelle et le libre accès que très brièvement. En l'état, le Rapport Sarr-Savoy est problématique dans la mesure où il recommande la numérisation systématique du patrimoine africain destiné à être restitué, et la mise à disposition en libre accès des fruits de cette numérisation. Ces recommandations doivent faire l’objet d’une analyse critique approfondie. Il est impératif que le gouvernement français adopte une stratégie de numérisation et de gestion des droits de la propriété intellectuelle plus nuancée que celle proposée par le Rapport Sarr-Savoy, et ce avant de procéder à la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain
Submission to the UK IPO: Artificial Intelligence and Performers' rights
No full textThis is the final version. Available on open access via the DOI in this recordThis submission assesses the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems on performers’ rights under UK law, provided by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
AI systems have introduced ground-breaking changes to the practice of performance synthetisation. Performance synthetisation refers to the manipulation of a performance or performer’s likeness. Performance synthetisation powered by AI (or AI-made performance synthetisation) utilises live or recorded performances protected by performers’ rights as source material.
The Act does not protect performers and other stakeholders against AI-made performance synthetisation because the application of its provisions to this type of activity is unclear. Performers and other stakeholders are thus left exposed by the current intellectual property (IP) framework. This sector of the creative economy is ill-equipped to adapt to the changes brought by AI systems to their industry.
Performance synthetisation created using AI systems raises novel legal questions on the subsistence and infringement framework for performers’ rights. Some of these questions are unique to performers’ rights (as opposed to copyright or other related rights).
AI-made performance synthetisation challenges our intellectual property framework insofar as it is capable of reproducing performances without generating a ‘recording’ or a ‘copy’ of a recording. This technical distinction between the reproduction of a performance, the recording of a performance and the reproduction (or copy) of that recording is important. The Act does not grant protection against unauthorized reproductions of a performance. Instead, the Act controls the recording of a performance, and the copy of that recording.
The current scope of the Act means that performers and other relevant stakeholders are left unprotected against the unauthorised synthetisation of their performances. Without the legal recognition of these rights, performers are also unable to form contracts to authorise the synthetisation of their performance or likeness. As a result, performers are unable to commercialise the synthetisation of their own performance effectively. The legal recognition of these rights is therefore paramount to supporting performers and other relevant stakeholders in adapting to the changes that AI systems will bring to their industry.
For these reasons, UK policy-makers should review the impact of AI systems on performers’ rights, particularly in relation to performance synthetisation. Any review should aim to improve the legal protections for performers and others invested in the making of performances. This reform closes an existing gap in UK law. This reform is the opportunity to establish the UK as a forward-thinking global leader on the legal protection of performers.
This submission was written by Dr Mathilde Pavis (University of Exeter, UK) in response to the call for views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property issued by UK Intellectual Property in September 2020
Author's gift inscription, in The heather on fire; a tale of the Highland clearances
No full textThis edition includes an author's gift inscription, "To Mrs John Dillon with sincere esteem Mathilde Blind".Blind, Mathilde, 1841-189
Where copyright ends, trade mark may begin: the EFTA Court allows relay races of intellectual property rights over artworks
No full textThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from OUP via the DOI in this record.Case E-5/16, Municipality of Oslo, EFTA, 6 April 2017. In April 2017, the EFTA Court confirmed that out-of-copyright works can be registered as
trade marks without - in principle - being in breach of the public policy or morality exclusions,
as long as the sign is neither descriptive nor lacking distinctiveness
Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy Report: Statement on Intellectual Property Rights and Open Access relevant to the digitization and restitution of African Cultural Heritage and associated materials
No full textWritten by Mathilde Pavis and Andrea Wallace and signed by 108 scholars and practitioners working in the fields of intellectual property law and material and digital cultural heritage at universities, heritage institutions and organizations around the world, this Response argues in support of undertaking further research and designing a more nuanced strategy around the digitization of African Cultural Heritage as recommended by the Sarr-Savoy Report submitted to the French Government in 2018. While the Sarr-Savoy Report goes into great detail about the important issues surrounding restitution, it includes very little about digitization, IP rights, and open access, which raises a number of concerns reviewed in the Response. Accordingly, the Sarr-Savoy Report’s recommendations for the digitization and management of cultural content must be critically examined. This Response urges the French Government to do so before proceeding with restitution
The Author-Performer Divide in Intellectual Property Law: A Comparative Analysis of the American, Australian, British and French Legal Frameworks
No full textWestern intellectual property frameworks have at least one feature in common: performers are less protected than authors. This situation knows many justifications, although all but one have been dismissed by the literature: performers are simply less creative than authors. As a result, the legal protection covering their work has been proportionally reduced compared to that of their authorial peers. This thesis investigates this phenomenon that it calls the 'author-performer divide'. It uncovers the culturally-rooted principles and legal reasoning that policy-makers and judges of Australia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States have developed to create in the legal narrative a hierarchy between authors and performers. It reveals that those intellectual property systems, though continuously reformed, still contain outdated conceptions of creativity based on the belief in ex nihilo creation and over-intellectualised representations of the creative process. Those two precepts combined have led legal discourse to portray performers as their authors' puppets, thus underserving of authorship themselves. This thesis reviews arguments raised against improving the performers' regime to challenge the preconception of performers as uncreative agents and questions the divide it supports. To this end, it seeks to update the representations of creativity currently conveyed in the law by drawing on the findings of other academic disciplines such as creativity research, performance theories as well as music, theatre and dance studies. This comparative inter-disciplinary study aims to move current legal debates on performers' rights away from the recurring themes and repeated arguments in the scholarship such as issues of fixation or of competing claims, all of which have made conversations stagnate. By including disciplines beyond the law, this analysis seeks to advance the legal literature on the question of performers' intellectual property protection and shift thinking about performative forms of creativity
The Author-Performer Divide in Intellectual Property Law: A Comparative Analysis of the American, Australian, British and French Legal Frameworks
No full textWestern intellectual property frameworks have at least one feature in common: performers are less protected than authors. This situation knows many justifications, although all but one have been dismissed by the literature: performers are simply less creative than authors. As a result, the legal protection covering their work has been proportionally reduced compared to that of their authorial peers. This thesis investigates this phenomenon that it calls the 'author-performer divide'. It uncovers the culturally-rooted principles and legal reasoning that policy-makers and judges of Australia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States have developed to create in the legal narrative a hierarchy between authors and performers. It reveals that those intellectual property systems, though continuously reformed, still contain outdated conceptions of creativity based on the belief in ex nihilo creation and over-intellectualised representations of the creative process. Those two precepts combined have led legal discourse to portray performers as their authors' puppets, thus underserving of authorship themselves. This thesis reviews arguments raised against improving the performers' regime to challenge the preconception of performers as uncreative agents and questions the divide it supports. To this end, it seeks to update the representations of creativity currently conveyed in the law by drawing on the findings of other academic disciplines such as creativity research, performance theories as well as music, theatre and dance studies. This comparative inter-disciplinary study aims to move current legal debates on performers' rights away from the recurring themes and repeated arguments in the scholarship such as issues of fixation or of competing claims, all of which have made conversations stagnate. By including disciplines beyond the law, this analysis seeks to advance the legal literature on the question of performers' intellectual property protection and shift thinking about performative forms of creativity
Réponse au Rapport Sarr-Savoy : Déclaration sur la numérisation, les droits de propriété intellectuelle et le libre accès du patrimoine culturel africain et des archives connexes
No full textSoutenues par 108 universitaires et praticiens spécialistes du droit de la propriété intellectuelle et du patrimoine culturel au sein d’universités, d’institutions et d’organisations du patrimoine à travers le monde, Mathilde Pavis et Andrea Wallace répondent au Rapport Sarr-Savoy soumis au gouvernement français en 2018. Cette réponse souligne la nécessité pour le gouvernement français d’entreprendre davantage de recherches sur les questions de numérisation, de droit de propriété intellectuelle et de libre accès dans le cadre de la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain. Le rapport Sarr-Savoy décrit les problèmes juridiques et éthiques liés à la restitution en détail, mais ne traite de la numérisation, les droits de propriété intellectuelle et le libre accès que très brièvement. En l'état, le Rapport Sarr-Savoy est problématique dans la mesure où il recommande la numérisation systématique du patrimoine africain destiné à être restitué, et la mise à disposition en libre accès des fruits de cette numérisation. Ces recommandations doivent faire l’objet d’une analyse critique approfondie. Il est impératif que le gouvernement français adopte une stratégie de numérisation et de gestion des droits de la propriété intellectuelle plus nuancée que celle proposée par le Rapport Sarr-Savoy, et ce avant de procéder à la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain
- …
