Smart CitationsSee how this article has been cited at scite.ai
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Copyright, Culture and Private Power
Content
Author and article information
Notes and References
Culture is, of course, a contested concept: see Jane M. Gaines, Contested Culture: The Image, the Voice, and the Law, BFI, London, 1992.
Although this may well be the case.
WIPO Publication No. 615(E), 1978.
See J. Waldron, ‘From authors to copiers: individual rights and social values in intellectual property’ Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68, 1993, pp. 841-887, at pp. 850.
See e.g., the excellent discussion in Waldron, ibid.
See e.g., F. Macmillan Patfield, ‘Legal policy and the limits of literary copyright’, in P. Parrinder & W. Chernaik (eds), Textual Monopolies: Literary Copyright and the Public Domain, London University, London, 1997, pp. 113–132.
World Commission on Culture and Development, Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development, 2nd edn, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, 1996.
ibid:.http://www.unesco.org/culture_and_development/ocd/foreword.html
Ibid.
Op. cit.http://www.unesco.org/culture_and_development/ocd/chapter9.html
Op. cit.http:www.unesco.org/culture_and_development/ocd/intro.html
Ibid.
Ibid.
Op. cit., Ref. 8.
Ibid.
Ibid.
The World Commission on Culture and Development puts it in the following words: ‘The basic principle should be the fostering of respect for all cultures whose values are tolerant of others. Respect goes beyond tolerance and implies a positive attitude to other people and a rejoicing in their culture’: op. cit., Ref. 11.
Op. cit., Ref. 11.
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Communication and the Arts, Creative Nation: Commonwealth Cultural Policy, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1994.
P. Drahos, ‘The visual artist in the global information economy’, Communications Law Bulletin, 14, 3, 1995, pp. 1-3 at p. 1.
Although it may cast some further light on the general bankruptcy of both rationales.
See W. Holdsworth, ‘Press control and copyright in the 16th and 17th centuries’, Yale Law Journal, 29, 1920, pp. 841-858, at pp. 850-851, 855-856.
See M. Rose ‘The author as proprietor: Donaldson v Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship’, in B. Sherman & S. Strowel (eds), Of Authors and Origins: Essays on Copyright Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994, p. 25.
See e.g., Michael Blakeney & Jill McKeough, Intellectual Property: Commentary and Materials, Law Book Company, Sydney, 1987, p. 12.
[T]he life of the law is not logic, and the fact that there is no test of talent or genius does not prevent the resonance of those ideas from influencing the rhetoric which sustains intellectual property doctrine as a whole’: Waldron, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 853.
See in more detail Macmillan Patfield, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 118–121.
As laid down in, e.g., University of London Press v University Tutorial Press (1916) 2 Ch 601, 608 per Peterson J.
See R. Chartier, ‘Figures of the author’ in Sherman & Strowel, op. cit., Ref. 23, p. 15.
Rogers v Koons 751 F Supp 474 (SDNY 1990), aff'd, 960 F 2d 301 (2d Cir), cert denied, 113 S Ct 365 (1992).
J. S. G. Boggs, ‘Who owns this?’, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68, 1993, pp. 889-910, at pp. 898–900.
Boggs later notes that ‘the visual arts have not fared as well in societies born of the English aesthetic, where literature is the supreme form of expression’: ibid., p. 905.
Ibid., p. 898.
On the issues and problems posed for copyright law by Koons’ artistic contribution, see K. Bowrey, ‘Copyright, the paternity of artistic work and the challenge posed by postmodern artists’, Intellectual Property Journal, 8, 1994, p. 285, esp. pp. 311–316.
This is somewhat of an oversimplification. See further e.g., Linda Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism, Routledge, London, 1989; & O. Polan, ‘Postmodernism and cultural analysis today’, in E. A. Kaplan (ed.), Postmodernism and Its Discontents, Verso, London, 1993, pp. 45–58.
Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Dartmouth, Aldershot, 1996, ch 3; see also, P. Drahos, ‘Community and creativity: the role of copyright’, Copyright Reporter, 13, 1, 1995, pp. 4–7.
It is doubtful that our fair dealing laws can be described as strong: see further Macmillan Patfield, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 123-125; F. Macmillan Patfield, ‘Towards a reconciliation of free speech and copyright’ in E. Barendt (ed.), The Yearbook of Media and Entertainment Law 1996, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996, pp. 199-233 at pp. 222-232; see also Waldron, op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 859-860. Campbell v Acuff-Rose, 114 S Ct 1164 (1994) may be regarded as a step in the right direction.
See e.g., M. Blakeney, ‘Protecting expressions of Australian Aboriginal folklore under copyright law’, European Intellectual Property Review, 9, 1995, pp. 442-445. On the issue of copyright's failure to protect distinctive styles of work and the way in which this demonstrates the law's failure to understand visual art, see also Boggs, op. cit., Ref. 30, pp. 895–898.
See Commonwealth of Australia Attorney-General's Department, Stopping the Rip Offs: Intellectual Property Protection for Aborigine and Torres Strait Island Peoples, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1994.
See T. Aplin, ‘Aboriginal art and moral rights law’, in A. Pederson, Bur-ran-gur ang: Women and the Law, University of Western Australia, Perth, 1995, pp. 22-25
Michael Blakeney, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1996, Ch. 1.
Possible Renewal of the Generalised System of Preferences---Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the US House of Rep Comm on Ways and Means, 98th Congress 1st Session (1983); and Unfair Foreign Trade Practices, Stealing American Intellectual Property: Imitation is Not Flattery, 98th Congress 2nd Session (1984): both cited in Blakeney, op. cit., Ref. 40, p. 2n. For a discussion of the evidence adduced to demonstrate economic loss of US traders see Blakeney, ibid., p. 2.
Blakeney, op. cit., Ref. 40, p. 4.
Ibid., p. 5.
Although the Berne Convention has made a recent comeback with the WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996 and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996.
droit d'auteurInternational Workshop on Legislation for the Book Worldhttp://cul-ture.coe.fr/clt/eng/eculiv0.9.html
E.g., Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), section 37.
E.g., Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), section 31(1)(c) and (d). See also Articles 11 and 14(4) of the TRIPs Agreement, which enshrine rental rights in relation to computer programmes, films and phonograms.
See Ref. 47.
For a discussion of this issue see, e.g., Gaines, op. cit., Ref. 1, and Waldron, op. cit., Ref. 4, esp. p. 854.
Intellectual Property Journalhttp:xinfo.ic.gc.ca/ic-data/announcem…news-releases/1996/english/e_04_25.html
A. Capling, ‘Gimme shelter!’, Arena Magazine, February/March 1996, p. 21.
Ibid., p. 22.
Ibid., p. 21.
Ibid., although if the Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) 1997 (Cth), or some variation on it, becomes law then this right will be removed or restricted in relation to compact disks in Australia.
See further F. Macmillan Patfield, ‘Defamation, freedom of speech and corporations’, Juridical Review, 1993, pp. 294-308 at pp. 299–300.
See the text accompanying Refs. 40-43.
See also Capling, op. cit., Ref. 52, p. 23; Drahos, op. cit., Ref. 20.
In Australia the oligopoly controlling the contemporary music industry appears to have been instrumental in maintaining a legislative environment favourable to its continued existence: see Capling, op. cit., Ref. 52.
See further, e.g., A. Chayes, ‘The modern corporation and the rule of law’ in E. S. Mason (ed.), The Corporation in Modern Society, Atheneum, New York, 1959, reprinted 1980, p. 25.
See further F. Macmillan Patfield, ‘Challenges for company law’ in F, Macmillan Patfield (ed.), Perspectives on Company Law: 1, Kluwer Law International, London, 1995, pp. 7–15.
Capling, op. cit., Ref. 52, p. 22.
Ibid.
Richard Abel, Speech and Respect, Stevens and Sons/Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1994, p. 52 (footnote omitted).
R. Abel, ‘Public freedom, private constraint’, Journal of Law and Society, 21, 1994, pp. 374–382.
Ibid., p. 380. Nevertheless, Moon has criticised Abel for his lack of concern ‘about the abuse of private power’: R. Moon, ‘Richard Abel's Speech and Respect’, Journal of Law and Society, 21, 1994, pp. 383-395 at p. 392.
A good example of this occurred in Walt Disney Prods v. Air Pirates, 581 F2d 751 (9th Cir, 1978), cert denied, 439 US 1132 (1979); and see the discussion of this case in Waldron, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 883.
See also the discussion of Rogers v. Koons in the text accompanying Refs. 29–35; M. Chon, ‘Postmodern “progress”: reconsidering the copyright and patent power’, DePaul Law Review, 43, 1993, pp. 97-130; D. M. Koenig, ‘Joe Camel and the First Amendment: the dark side of copyrighted and trademark-protected icons’, Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 11, 1994, pp. 803-846; Macmillan Patfield, ‘Towards a reconciliation of free speech and copyright’, op. cit., Ref. 36, pp. 219–222.
See Ref. 13 above and accompanying text.
Waldron, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 885.
This was as a result of Council Directive 93/98/EEC, 1993 OJ L290/9.
See Refs. 17 and 18 above and accompanying text.
Op. cit.http://www.unesco.org/cultureanddevelopment/ocd/agenda/implem.html
Ibid.