This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
These events point to two prevalent issues within the current legal framework: First, that current intellectual property laws do not properly acknowledge collective ownership over shared culture within Indigenous communities and second, whether tattoo designs have the potential to be protected through copyrightlaws.
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriend Jakub Wyczik (University of Silesia in Katowice) on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the application of copyright subsistence criteria. Human author It is well known that copyright protects products of the human mind (see Feist v.
No strict actions are taken against these infringements; in fact, in a Supreme Court case in Japan in 2009 [1] the creator of file sharing program known as ‘Winny’ was not found guilty of infringing content through providing file-sharing software and his actual intent of legitimate legal use was considered over the alleged infringement.
Japan was earliest, in 2009. Not using for personal enjoyment = exception the broadest we’ve seen. Group III: Others, like China’s 3d amendment to Chinese copyrightlaw. Other circumstances as provided by laws and administrative regulations”—allowed limitations and exceptions.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content