ESSAY : Copyright protection requires works to show originality

1. Copyright protection requires works to show originality. In the United States, following the Feist case, this requires only a modest level of personal creativity. However, in most of Europe, the originality criterion assumes that the work be the author’s own intellectual creation.
Critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the European and US approaches to originality for promoting (a) creativity, and (b) competition.
2. The fair use defence in United States copyright law has been criticised for being both vague and unjustifiably broad in its meaning and application.
Critically discuss the fair use doctrine and its consequences in light of the United States constitution’s ‘IP clause’ (Section 1.8.8), the three-step tests provided in the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement.
3. “We should extend copyright protection to non-human entities such as animals and AI”.
Critically evaluate this statement in light of: (i) the purposes of copyright law, and (ii) the criteria for protection.
4. Whether the invention is a different coffee lid or a brand new life-saving drug for a disease previously incurable, patent law treats them equally with the same level of protection.
How far would you agree that a properly functioning patent system requires such non- discrimination in terms of (a) field of technology and (b) social utility in order to function properly? Or should patent law treat certain types of invention with more favor than others?
1

5. “Some critics have argued in favor of prohibiting intellectual property rights on Artificial Intelligence-generated works on the basis that the law should only protect the results of mental activity and machines cannot think. This is not the right focus: Whether and how an AI thinks should not be relevant… it should not matter to the law whether invention comes from Einstein or a room full of monkeys. What society cares about is generating socially beneficial innovation, not how an AI is designed or whether it thinks in a philosophy sense.”
In the above statement Prof. Ryan Abbott argues in favor of: (a) patenting AI inventions and (b) naming AI as an inventor of such inventions.
Critically evaluate his point of view.
6. The United States patent system has no statutory subject matter exclusions but provides certain court-crafted ones. The European Patent Convention lists things that are not inventions.
How far would you agree that these exclusions are not necessary, and that the novelty, non- obviousness, and utility or industrial applicability requirements are sufficient for a well- functioning patent system? Do you consider the US approach to be more effective than the European one, or vice versa? Justify your opinion.
7. “Recent trends in technology are making intellectual property rights increasingly irrelevant.”
Critically discuss this statement in relation to any business or creative sector such as film or music, or field of technology.
8. “The functions of geographical indications can be adequately performed by trademarks. Therefore geographical indications as a separate intellectual property right are not necessary.”
This opinion is quite common in the United States but less so in Europe. How far do you agree with this statement? In your discussion, you should make references to named national and international laws.
9. ‘Intellectual property law more generally exists to prevent copying and to incentivise creativity – on the belief that the freedom to copy would ultimately destroy innovation and creativity. Yet, rampant copying and innovation exists in many creative industries. This suggests that copying may not be inhibiting the production and diffusion of creative productions.’
This statement implies that strict enforcement of IP rights may be less necessary than many peoples think. Critically discuss this statement in the context of a specific intellectual property right or business sector such as music or film.