Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Impact of Globalization on the Public Domain and Intellectual Property Rights
Annotated Bibliography
Robyn Ward
Emporia State University
Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain 2
The Impact of Globalization on the Public Domain and Intellectual Property Rights
Introduction
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 27 “Everyone
has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts
and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”…(UNESCO report Towards
Knowledge Societies, p.117)
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the Public Domain will be considered
within the context of the Global Information Infrastructure. A case will be made that
current standards of IPR need to change in the current information environment.
Information has become commoditized but unlike other resources is not exhaustive,
rather it is enhanced when able to be used. Private control of information especially in the
scientific and technological fields has negatively impacted public access to knowledge.
As one considers Intellectual Property Rights, it is easy to consider the Public Domain as
the polar opposite as expressed by Eva Hummungs Wirtén in her article Out of Sight and
Out of Mind. But this perception is too simplistic and harmful to our understanding of
both. Both Kim Nayyer and Anju Jain discuss the harmonization of intellectual property
laws and how this negatively impacts least developed countries. John Barlow also
touches on these concepts in his article Intellectual Property, Information Age.
Who owns the creation of new knowledge and when should someone’s monopoly
on a creation end? This is articulately addressed in both the movie Diva and the book No
Trespassing; Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights and the Boundaries of
Globalization by Eva Hummungs Wirtén.
Intellectual Property is an important aspect of knowledge creation and should be
protected. This is defended by the World Intellectual Property Organization. But there are
other means for authors/creators to share their works such as through Open Source
communities like Creative Commons, which enables a broader look at copyright and
promotes the sharing of knowledge for the common good.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain need to be redefined and
changed for this new global information environment. There are camps on extreme sides
of the discussion but we need to come to some median. Both issues are important for our
global society but we need to find a way to implement without marginalization.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain 3
Annotated Bibliography
Barlow, J. P. (2002). Intellectual property, information age. In A. Thierer & W. Crews
(Eds.), Copy fights: The future of intellectual property in the information age
(pp. 37-41). Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute.
(1) Authority of the author: John Perry Barlow is cofounder of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation. Since 1998 he has been a fellow at Harvard Law School’s Berkman
Center for Internet and Society. He has written numerous articles on the topic
including his “Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace”.
(2) Relevance: “Since the Telecommuications Reform Act of 1996, we have seen an
extraordinary concentration of capital and access control and ownership of what
they call “content” in the hands of a very few organizations” (p.37). The article is
a call for society to fight against the encroachment of Intellectual Property Rights
and the governance of those by a few large corporations.
(3) Contribution to our understanding of the GII: The author makes the argument that
information is not a physical good. It is wrong to assume that there will be a
scarcity or value of information as with material goods. He talks of the ecology of
ideas (p.38) in that information is more valuable only when it is shared between
two minds to expand and create new information/knowledge.
(4) Coverage: The author advises that if “we’re going to enter into an economy where
the principal article of commerce is indistinguishable from speech, efforts to
control that article of commerce will inevitably control speech” (p.38).
(5) Point of view/bias: The view of the author is one of fighting for the public
domain, making ideas free and open for use in order to create anew and to ensure
this freedom for not only ourselves but for the future.
Creative Commons. (2007). Creative commons: Share, reuse, and remix – legally.
Retrieved June 17, 2007, from http://creativecommons.org/
(1) Authority of the author: Lawrence Lessig founder and CEO of Creative Commons
is also Professor of Law at Stanford University and is founder of the school’s
Center for Internet and Society. He has written books on Internet law and
constitutional law. He is very involved in copyright law and contributes
significantly to open source movements. For more see his website
Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain 4
http://www.lessig.org/.
(2) Relevance: Creative Commons (CC) is a nonprofit organization founded in 2001
with the help of The Center for the Public Domain. It “provides free tools that let
authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the
freedoms they want it to carry”.
(3) Contribution to our understanding of the GII: The argument held by Creative
Commons is that there are currently two extreme poles that represent copyright:
“anarchy” and “all rights reserved”. CC wants to bridge these poles by providing
a fair balance for copyright by having a “single goal that unites Creative
Commons’ current and future projects that will build a layer of reasonable,
flexible copyright in the face of increasingly restrictive default rules”. Creative
Commons makes available its resources on a global scale.
(4) Coverage: Creative Commons provides a Web application to help individuals
either contribute their creative works to the public domain, or retain their
copyright while licensing them as free for certain uses under certain conditions.
Creative Commons' licenses are for creative works such as “websites, scholarship,
music, film, photography, literature, courseware, etc”.
(5) Point of view/bias: The goals of Creative Commons seems to be fair and balanced
regarding making available a way to give credit to authors while at the same time
giving authors/creators opportunity to share all or certain aspects of creations
toward the public domain or the commons.
Hemmungs Wirtén, E. (2004). Genies in bottles and bottled-up geniuses: Two cases of
upset relatives and a public domain (ch.6). In E. H. Wirtén, No trespassing;
Authorship, intellectual property rights and the boundaries of globalization (pp.
125-148). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
(1) Authority of the author: Eva Hemmungs Wirtén is Senior Lecturer in Library and
Information Science and Associate Professor [Docent] in Comparative Literature,
in the Department of ALM (Archival Science, Library and Information Science,
Museology) at Uppsala University. Her research includes topics of intellectual
property/the public domain, the history/theory/philosophy of information, and
print culture/book history. http://www.abm.uu.se/evahw/
Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain 5
(2) Relevance: In 1878 Victor Hugo declared before the Congrès Littéraire
International in Paris “Let us acknowledge literary property but, at the same time,
let us found the public domain’ (p.125). He continues that only the author and
society are invested in literature…“the heir does not make the book: he cannot
have the rights of the author (p.127).
(3) Contribution to our understanding of the GII: Globalization benefits exporters
rather than importers regarding intellectual property rights which fundamentally
serve domestic and national agendas rather than global agendas (p.137). The
author also discusses that TRIPS and the WTO organize the world according to
relationships between national governments and how is this beneficial to those
inevitably left out? (p.139).
(4) Coverage: This chapter covers the intellectual property right versus the public
domain by representing two cases that occurred during the same time period. One
dealing with the Margaret Mitchell estate and the publication of The Wind Done
Gone. And the second case concerning Victor Hugo’s descendents claiming rights
to content used in François Cérésa’s book Cosette ou le temps des illustions from
Les Miserables. In both circumstances it was descendents making claim of
intellectual rights that they did not create. Descendents lost in both cases. The
author also discusses that the public domain is still conceptualized as place and
space and the Internet is considered as the last open frontier (p.143) and why there
is so much debate.
(5) Point of view/bias: The author makes an articulate and supportive case for works
being made available for the public and that discussion needs to occur and a
revised view and written standards for intellectual property need to be addressed
especially with such matters being influenced on a global scale.
Hemmungs Wirtén, E. (2006). Out of sight and out of mind: On the cultural hegemony of
intellectual property (critique). Cultural Studies, 20 (2-3), 282-291. Retrieved
June 23, 2007 from Informaworld database.
(1) Authority of the author: Eva Hemmungs Wirtén is Senior Lecturer in Library and
Information Science and Associate Professor [Docent] in Comparative Literature,
in the Department of ALM (Archival Science, Library and Information Science,
Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain 6