Friday fantasies

Forthcoming events. Don't you just love them? The thrill of that brief encounter with a new IP proposition. The frisson of that free coffee which comes with your registration fee.  The fond farewells after the chairman's closing speech. The chance to get home earlier because your colleagues back in the office didn't notice how early the talk was scheduled to finish ... Never mind, just check here and see if anything takes your fancy. 

Darfurnica: the readers speak. The IPKat was most surprised at the outcome of his recent poll, on the balance between brand protection and freedom of expression.  For the benefit of (i) new readers and (ii) old ones with amnesia, the picture depicted here is contentious because uxury brand owner Louis Vuitton has objected to the use of one of its registered designs on the handbag of the malnourished child (to see the artwork more closely, click here). The IPKat ran a poll this week in order to ascertain whether his readers believe that the interests of the IP owner in maintaining control of its iconic IP and in resisting the effect of unauthorised uses should take precedence over the artist's right of freedom of expression in seeking to evoke the powerful message of iconic IP when making a political, cultural or social point.  The responses -- drawn from 298 voters -- were as follows:
  • IP must be protected --pictures like Darfurnica can destroy years of expensive marketing and damage goodwill 6 (2%)
  • Each case should be decided on its own facts -- you can't make one rule in advance of all possible situations 143 (47%)
  • Freedom of expression must prevail, since it is a fundamental requirement of modern society 149 (50%)
The Kat had assumed that, since this weblog is a relatively IP-friendly medium, there would have been more sabre-rattling from the militant enforcement folk. In fact, there is a preponderant pro-freedom of expression sentiment in that while half think freedom of expression should trump IP all the time, almost all the other half think it should trump IP where it can be justified on the facts.

Around the blogs. Run by Dannemann Siemsen Advogados' duo of Attilio Gorini and Rodrigo Borges Carneiro, Entertainment Law Brazil is just celebrating its first birthday. Happy birthday, says the IPKat, who hopes that IP Tango -- which is not currently linked to this lovely blog and which will be three this June-- will also be invited to the party. Now, moving from parties to patents, there's a bouncy guest article on PatLit this week from a blogospheric debutante, Michelle Umansky, which really opens up the state of US law on "patent marking" for us puzzled Europeans.  Another guest this week, though no stranger to the social media, is Emily Goodhand (@copyrightgirl, as she is known on Twitter and author of the Copyright for Education weblog).  Hosted by the 1709 Blog, Emily shares some thoughts on life after the Google non-settlement, here.

Advance notice: IPKat team member plans to be at The Old Nick this Tuesday, 12 April, from 5.15pm to 6.30pm. Anyone who likes talking about IP with fellow enthusiasts is welcome. No need to RSVP.
Friday fantasies Friday fantasies Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, April 08, 2011 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Did those fizzy pop peddlers from Atlanta ever sue Andy Warhol? How many time was their signature used as is or in modified form for political messages?


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.