Fashion designers’ persistent struggle to establish their author status is marked not only by external discrimination but also by internal industry biases. Historically, the alleged cultural elitism of copyright law has been the main hurdle for granting them this title. However, recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union have dismantled any meaningful margin for discriminatory treatment across different art forms. With the clear acknowledgement of fashion designs as copyright-protectable subject matter, fashion designers can now proudly wear the badge of ‘authors’. But what does this newfound title bear, in practice, in a sector where authorship is built on an unjust foundation, on the grounds of the fashion industry’s discreditable hierarchy? What is the current fate of their moral and economic rights and how can the mechanisms provided to authors by Directive 2019/790 (DSM Directive) be leveraged to re-equilibrate the dynamics of the industry? These are, inter alia, the questions this article—ambitiously—attempts to explore.
{"title":"Authorship and re-equilibration of the dynamics in the fashion industry: can the DSM Directive be the leader of a new regime for designers?","authors":"Spyridon Sipetas","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpae014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Fashion designers’ persistent struggle to establish their author status is marked not only by external discrimination but also by internal industry biases. Historically, the alleged cultural elitism of copyright law has been the main hurdle for granting them this title. However, recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union have dismantled any meaningful margin for discriminatory treatment across different art forms. With the clear acknowledgement of fashion designs as copyright-protectable subject matter, fashion designers can now proudly wear the badge of ‘authors’. But what does this newfound title bear, in practice, in a sector where authorship is built on an unjust foundation, on the grounds of the fashion industry’s discreditable hierarchy? What is the current fate of their moral and economic rights and how can the mechanisms provided to authors by Directive 2019/790 (DSM Directive) be leveraged to re-equilibrate the dynamics of the industry? These are, inter alia, the questions this article—ambitiously—attempts to explore.","PeriodicalId":508706,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","volume":" 34","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139792592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fashion designers’ persistent struggle to establish their author status is marked not only by external discrimination but also by internal industry biases. Historically, the alleged cultural elitism of copyright law has been the main hurdle for granting them this title. However, recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union have dismantled any meaningful margin for discriminatory treatment across different art forms. With the clear acknowledgement of fashion designs as copyright-protectable subject matter, fashion designers can now proudly wear the badge of ‘authors’. But what does this newfound title bear, in practice, in a sector where authorship is built on an unjust foundation, on the grounds of the fashion industry’s discreditable hierarchy? What is the current fate of their moral and economic rights and how can the mechanisms provided to authors by Directive 2019/790 (DSM Directive) be leveraged to re-equilibrate the dynamics of the industry? These are, inter alia, the questions this article—ambitiously—attempts to explore.
{"title":"Authorship and re-equilibration of the dynamics in the fashion industry: can the DSM Directive be the leader of a new regime for designers?","authors":"Spyridon Sipetas","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpae014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Fashion designers’ persistent struggle to establish their author status is marked not only by external discrimination but also by internal industry biases. Historically, the alleged cultural elitism of copyright law has been the main hurdle for granting them this title. However, recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union have dismantled any meaningful margin for discriminatory treatment across different art forms. With the clear acknowledgement of fashion designs as copyright-protectable subject matter, fashion designers can now proudly wear the badge of ‘authors’. But what does this newfound title bear, in practice, in a sector where authorship is built on an unjust foundation, on the grounds of the fashion industry’s discreditable hierarchy? What is the current fate of their moral and economic rights and how can the mechanisms provided to authors by Directive 2019/790 (DSM Directive) be leveraged to re-equilibrate the dynamics of the industry? These are, inter alia, the questions this article—ambitiously—attempts to explore.","PeriodicalId":508706,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139852458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Geographical Indications (GIs) are collective rights granted to a group of producers in a limited geographical area. One of the rationales of GI protection is biodiversity conservation which is rapidly being advanced. However, if the GI fails to value the terroir associated with it, it can risk erosion of bio(cultural)diversity. In this paper, taking lessons from such experiences, we argue for activating producers’ rights in discussions on biodiversity conservation through GIs and for the systematic inclusion of environmental law, which is considered relevant by the producers, in the GI specification. The rationale of sustainability and sustainable development and the integration of the capabilities approach to IP governance is part of our theoretical underpinnings for such an argument. Given the relationship between these concepts, we first explain biodiversity conservation and then situate the role of GIs in this context. Finally, we also differentiate between third-party certifications and eco-labels and GIs. The role of the former can be useful but limited as GIs offer a better opportunity to include producers’ own views. We support our arguments throughout the paper using various examples from secondary empirical research. In practice, we argue for making GI laws, including designing of GI specifications, in a manner that producers’ participation is included by design. Considerations of bio(cultural)diversity should be, by design, a part of GIs to increase their efficiency in fulfilling this rationale of protection. This calls for more interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary engagement from GI scholars as well.
{"title":"A case for activating producers’ rights in discussions on conservation of biodiversity through Geographical Indications","authors":"D. Saxena, Christine Frison","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpae005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Geographical Indications (GIs) are collective rights granted to a group of producers in a limited geographical area. One of the rationales of GI protection is biodiversity conservation which is rapidly being advanced. However, if the GI fails to value the terroir associated with it, it can risk erosion of bio(cultural)diversity. In this paper, taking lessons from such experiences, we argue for activating producers’ rights in discussions on biodiversity conservation through GIs and for the systematic inclusion of environmental law, which is considered relevant by the producers, in the GI specification. The rationale of sustainability and sustainable development and the integration of the capabilities approach to IP governance is part of our theoretical underpinnings for such an argument. Given the relationship between these concepts, we first explain biodiversity conservation and then situate the role of GIs in this context. Finally, we also differentiate between third-party certifications and eco-labels and GIs. The role of the former can be useful but limited as GIs offer a better opportunity to include producers’ own views. We support our arguments throughout the paper using various examples from secondary empirical research. In practice, we argue for making GI laws, including designing of GI specifications, in a manner that producers’ participation is included by design. Considerations of bio(cultural)diversity should be, by design, a part of GIs to increase their efficiency in fulfilling this rationale of protection. This calls for more interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary engagement from GI scholars as well.","PeriodicalId":508706,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","volume":"39 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139802975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Geographical Indications (GIs) are collective rights granted to a group of producers in a limited geographical area. One of the rationales of GI protection is biodiversity conservation which is rapidly being advanced. However, if the GI fails to value the terroir associated with it, it can risk erosion of bio(cultural)diversity. In this paper, taking lessons from such experiences, we argue for activating producers’ rights in discussions on biodiversity conservation through GIs and for the systematic inclusion of environmental law, which is considered relevant by the producers, in the GI specification. The rationale of sustainability and sustainable development and the integration of the capabilities approach to IP governance is part of our theoretical underpinnings for such an argument. Given the relationship between these concepts, we first explain biodiversity conservation and then situate the role of GIs in this context. Finally, we also differentiate between third-party certifications and eco-labels and GIs. The role of the former can be useful but limited as GIs offer a better opportunity to include producers’ own views. We support our arguments throughout the paper using various examples from secondary empirical research. In practice, we argue for making GI laws, including designing of GI specifications, in a manner that producers’ participation is included by design. Considerations of bio(cultural)diversity should be, by design, a part of GIs to increase their efficiency in fulfilling this rationale of protection. This calls for more interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary engagement from GI scholars as well.
{"title":"A case for activating producers’ rights in discussions on conservation of biodiversity through Geographical Indications","authors":"D. Saxena, Christine Frison","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpae005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Geographical Indications (GIs) are collective rights granted to a group of producers in a limited geographical area. One of the rationales of GI protection is biodiversity conservation which is rapidly being advanced. However, if the GI fails to value the terroir associated with it, it can risk erosion of bio(cultural)diversity. In this paper, taking lessons from such experiences, we argue for activating producers’ rights in discussions on biodiversity conservation through GIs and for the systematic inclusion of environmental law, which is considered relevant by the producers, in the GI specification. The rationale of sustainability and sustainable development and the integration of the capabilities approach to IP governance is part of our theoretical underpinnings for such an argument. Given the relationship between these concepts, we first explain biodiversity conservation and then situate the role of GIs in this context. Finally, we also differentiate between third-party certifications and eco-labels and GIs. The role of the former can be useful but limited as GIs offer a better opportunity to include producers’ own views. We support our arguments throughout the paper using various examples from secondary empirical research. In practice, we argue for making GI laws, including designing of GI specifications, in a manner that producers’ participation is included by design. Considerations of bio(cultural)diversity should be, by design, a part of GIs to increase their efficiency in fulfilling this rationale of protection. This calls for more interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary engagement from GI scholars as well.","PeriodicalId":508706,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","volume":"93 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139863330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2023, courts and competent authorities in Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom delivered a series of important rulings of interest to and affecting the fashion sector. This contribution provides a round-up of the most significant fashion-related IP judgments issued in the period 1 January to 31 December 2023. The analysis is organized by substantive IP right and enforcement aspects, and is organized by country.
{"title":"Round-up of fashion-related IP decisions 2023","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpae013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 2023, courts and competent authorities in Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom delivered a series of important rulings of interest to and affecting the fashion sector. This contribution provides a round-up of the most significant fashion-related IP judgments issued in the period 1 January to 31 December 2023. The analysis is organized by substantive IP right and enforcement aspects, and is organized by country.","PeriodicalId":508706,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","volume":"11 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139808362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2023, courts and competent authorities in Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom delivered a series of important rulings of interest to and affecting the fashion sector. This contribution provides a round-up of the most significant fashion-related IP judgments issued in the period 1 January to 31 December 2023. The analysis is organized by substantive IP right and enforcement aspects, and is organized by country.
{"title":"Round-up of fashion-related IP decisions 2023","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpae013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 2023, courts and competent authorities in Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom delivered a series of important rulings of interest to and affecting the fashion sector. This contribution provides a round-up of the most significant fashion-related IP judgments issued in the period 1 January to 31 December 2023. The analysis is organized by substantive IP right and enforcement aspects, and is organized by country.","PeriodicalId":508706,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","volume":"52 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139868095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：