⛧☾༺ Kafi's_E♰Portfolio ༻☽⛧ @journalentriesfor-law3950 - Tumblr Blog

I support copyright infringement wholeheartedly. People should pirate things. People should make archives of things. People should use things other people make in their art, people should alter other people's art, people should be able to record and copy and be inspired by other people's art, and nobody should get to have a say in who does and doesn't do this. Especially online.

Online copyright is the capitalist illusion that the binary numbers you shuffle around the Internet are some tangible commodity but it's not. You can copy paste things. Being pro copyright is accepting that the vice grip capitalism has on ppls minds must extend to information and art too.

Its literally just a broader version of NFT logic. If you support copyright you're effectively saying NFTs are real and good

INB4: copyright infringement and plagiarism are 2 different things. so are libel, impersonation, misinformation, and doxxing. before you think of a gotcha situation to retort with, do first consider if it actually falls in one of these categories instead.

batboyblog

Copy Right and Public Domain in 2026

It's January 1st 2026, Public Domain Day! it is the day, once a year, in the US where copyright expires! why yes! today every book, movie, art work and musical composition published in 1930 enters the public domain, 95 long long years after it first appeared. Sound recordings are governed by a different law so every sound recording made in 1925, 100 years ago! are also entering the public domain

So whats public today? so glad you asked!

Betty Boop

That's right iconic cartoon sweet heart Betty Boop is joining us out in the public domain. HOWEVER as always, it's important to remember only stories and images of Betty (or any character) published in 1930 are free and she was a little different back then. She was a dog... no I mean the character was originally a human-poodle mix

the owners of Betty Boop, Fleischer Studios, have been very aggressive about letting it be known they feel like the original Betty is totally different and people better not touch their cash cow, so it'll be interesting to see what happens there.

Pluto

Mickey Mouse got a huge amount of attention entering the public domain a few years ago, well now Mickey's dog and the first of his friends, Pluto is joining him in the public domain. But like I said only what same out in 1930 is public. Pluto appeared in two Mickey shorts that year, and in neither was called Pluto. In The Chain Gang he had no name, and in The Picnic he's "Rover" (and Minnie's dog)

Nancy Drew

Oh yes! a few years ago the Hardy Boys came into the public domain and now the girl who's very name, like Sherlock Holmes gets used as short hand for a detective, is entering the public domain. The first 4 Nancy Drew books, The Secret of the Old Clock, The Hidden Staircase, The Bungalow Mystery, and The Mystery at Lilac Inn are now public. Now! the original Nancy Drew books were all rewritten in the late 1950s and early 1960s, to make Nancy generally nicer and more 1950s suitable (though also to cut some of the 1930s racism out) those versions of the books remain copyrighted so be careful about what details you give Nancy Drew if you add her to a story.

The Three Stooges (but not Curly)

The 1930 film, Soup to Nuts would be the first film appearance by what was at the time knowns as "Ted Healy and His Stooges" They would shortly ditch Healy who kinda becomes the Pete Best of the Stooges. You might think you know The Three Stooges, Larry, Moe and Curly, but thats not the line up thats entering the public domain this year. Now, if you didn't know, Moe and Curly were real life brothers, Moe and Jerome Howard (changed from the "too Jewish" Horwitz, Larry was Larry Fine, also changed to sound less Jewish from Louis Feinberg). At first the Stooges included Moe and Curly's older brother Samuel, known as Shemp. Shemp left the group in 1932 and was replaced by his kid brother Curly. Fans likely know Shemp from his later work with the Stoogles. Curly suffered a major stroke in 1946 and Shemp stepped in and replaced him before his own death in 1955. So Larry, Shemp and Moe are now public domain, but Curly is not.

Miss Marple

Why yes, Agatha Christie's The Murder at the Vicarage the very first appearance of Christie's iconic old maid detective Miss Marple is now public domain. So if you've always dreamed of writing a murder mystery team up book of Nancy Drew and Miss Marple, now is your moment! Though as always remember only what is in The Murder at the Vicarage is public domain. In this first outing Marple is sharper tongued and less kind than later versions of the beloved character.

More Tintin and Mickey Mouse

Last year on Public Domain Day we celebrated the first Tintin comic strips entering the public domain. However it wasn't a complete Tintin story, as Tintin in the Land of the Soviets was published weekly between 1929 and 1930. Now the rest of Land of the Soviets and the start of Tintin in the Congo have entered the public domain. But remember only what was published at the time is free, Hergé wouldn't reissue Tintin in color till the 1940s. It was a very big deal when Mickey Mouse entered the public domain two years ago. However at the time only a very little was entering, last year many more Mickey shorts came into the public domain. This year 9 Mickey shorts (Fiddlin' Around, The Barnyard Concert, The Cactus Kid, The Fire Fighters, The Shindig, The Chain Gang, The Gorilla Mystery, The Picnic, and Pioneer Days) are entering public domain bring many more details of Mickey to the public, like as I mentioned Pluto (or Rover).

What else?

Books

Popular children's book The Little Engine That Could by Watty Piper, illustrated by Lois Lenski and William H. Elson's Basic Reader, the book that taught generations of Americans to read with Dick and Jane are now in the public domain. For more grown up literature, The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett parts of the book became public domain last year but now the complete book is in the public domain. William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, Evelyn Waugh's Vile Bodies, and Agatha Christie's The Mysterious Mr Quin and Giant's Bread were all published in 1930 so are free and clear. T.S. Eliot's long form poem Ash Wednesday is entering the public domain. For non-fiction you have Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents (in its original German) and the philosopher Bertrand Russell's The Conquest of Happiness. Noël Coward's play Private Lives was also published in 1930. To return to children's books, The Cat Who Went to Heaven by Elizabeth Coatsworth and illustrated by Lynd Ward, as well as Swallows and Amazons by Arthur Ransome.

Movies

Two Academy Award for Best Picture winners, All Quiet on the Western Front directed by Lewis Milestone and Cimarron directed by Wesley Ruggles. Cimarron was released in 1931 but copyright was filed in 1930 so is now Public Domain. Hell's Angels directed by Howard Hughes the first film to star the original blonde bombshell, Jean Harlow is now Public Domain. Greta Garbo and Buster Keaton's first talkie films, Anna Christie and Free and Easy respectively, were in 1930. John Wayne’s first leading role, The Big Trail, as well as Bing Crosby’s first appearance in a film King of Jazz are public domain. Two Marlene Dietrich pictures both directed by Josef von Sternberg, The Blue Angel in German and Morocco in English where she co-stared with Gary Cooper are now free of copyright. the Marx Brothers' film Animal Crackers is also now public domain. Alfred Hitchcock's Murder! and the film L'Age d'Or directed by Luis Buñuel and co-written by the artist Salvador Dalí are also coming into public ownership.

Songs, Written

Songs composed and published in 1930, but NOT recordings of said songs, are entering the public domain, so you are free to record your versions of the following famous toons. The Jazz standard Body and Soul, I Got Rhythm, I've Got a Crush on You, But Not for Me, and Embraceable You by Ira and George Gershwin, Georgia on My Mind, Dream a Little Dream of Me, Livin' in the Sunlight, Lovin' in the Moonlight, On the Sunny Side of the Street, and You're Driving Me Crazy will all be free for artists to record this year.

TV? TV!

This will likely shock you but the first work of television to enter public domain would happen this year, since it would be almost 20 years before the technology would come into its own. Now this one is really theoretical. In 1930 the BBC made an experimental 30 minute broadcast of a play called The Man With the Flower in His Mouth. Since the broadcast was live and at the time there was no way to record television, there's no copy of it so it's really just in theory that its public domain, but still interesting.

Art

its always difficult to judge when a piece of art was "published" so when its copyright runs out can be tricky however here are some we know for sure

Piet Mondrian's Composition No.II

Theo Van Doesburg's Simultaneous Counter-Composition

Sophie Taeuber-Arp's Composition of Circles and Overlapping Angles

Martin Munkácsi's Three Boys at Lake Tanganyika

Edward Weston's Pepper No. 30

also the legendary Ansel Adams' photo book Taos Pueblo enters the public domain

undoubtedly the most famous piece of art from 1930, American Gothic by Grant Wood

as well as Prometheus by José Clemente Orozco will not be entering public domain this year.... because they've been in public domain since the 1950s because no one filed for copyright renewal in 1958.

What else?

If you grew up reading Sunday cartoons in the paper like I did you might be happy to hear, the original comic strip version of Blondie and Dagwood from the Blondie comic strip will be entering public domain. Fans of the strip might be shocked to find that when they started Blondie and Dagwood weren't married parents but dating young people, very different from what they'd become over the 95 year life the strip.

Songs, Recorded.

unlike everything else on this list recorded song is governed by a totally different law, so songs recorded in 1925 not 1930 are what is coming into the public domain today. Here's a sampling of the greatest hits of 100 years ago

Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen by Marian Anderson

The St. Louis Blues by Bessie Smith, with Louis Armstrong

Everybody Loves My Baby (but My Baby Don't Love Nobody but Me) by Clarence Williams’ Blue Five (Louis Armstrong on Cornet)

Yes Sir, That's My Baby by Gene Austin

If I Lose, Let me Lose (Mama Don't Mind) by Maggie Jones with Louis Armstrong

You've Been A Good Old Wagon by Bessie Smith

So happy Public Domain Day! if you have a favorite work entering the public domain I didn't mention feel free to reblog with additions

and remember, Copyright and Trademark are not the same thing, and its works published in the 1930, unless its a sound recording then its 1925 and all of this is US law.

plaguedocboi

GORGEOUS GIRLS IN MY AREA???

I followed this lil dude around for like ten minutes. Probably the most beautiful polychaete I’ve ever seen

Is Intellectual Property Truly Necessary for Creativity and Innovation to Occur?

Intellectual Property law incentivises creation through exclusive rights to authors. Yet in many spaces, innovation exists without any formal legal protection. In Trinidad, the carnival costumes are commonly referred to as ‘panty and bra’ in local parlance, serving as an example of this as the designer would have rights over the design of the costume; however, the sharing and adaptation of designs across mas bands reflect a shared sense of creativity. Therefore, innovation persists here in Trinidad through cultural exchange and community recognition.

In online spaces, fan art emerges from all subcultures. Fair use is used when fan art is created from copyrighted characters without permission. The culture pays homage to the original works by allowing fans to build on new character dynamics and designs. It allows for new stories to be told from the point of view of the characters, and it allows for franchises to remain alive years after their end.

Even in a not safe-for-work setting (NSFW), online culture dictates and drives innovation and new ideas without being prompted. For example, the concept of Rule 34 in online spaces serves as a testament that no matter what form of media is put out into the digital space, there will be someone who will take it and create something new with it. This rule is an unspoken rule that says any character online has some form of art depicting the character in a sexual NSFW context. Therefore, even in more depraved communities online, the lack of intellectual property rights surrounding Rule 34 artworks doesn’t hinder creativity and innovation, but rather the culture that has been built up online dictates that creativity will persist even when not prompted.

As such, strict laws distinguishing the parameters of intellectual property rights over these spaces can stifle creativity. If all works required licensing, then many artists would be blocked from creating. Fair dealing provisions must therefore be created to allow for the creation of works in spite of copyright law. Therefore, while intellectual property protects economic interest, it is not the main driver of creativity. Online spaces prove that social norms set out in community engagement can be more significant in creating innovation, as it relies on the genuine interest and desire to create and explore.

Open Access LicensinG

Open access licensing is controlled sharing of content that serves as an active shift away from traditional intellectual property management. Under copyright, creators have the right to reproduce and distribute their works, and while this encourages creation through ownership, access to information is limited. Open access licensing allows authors to share their work and encourages persons to build on it or critique it. Authors are allowed to share their works while maintaining full ownership and allowing for the use of the work. This encourages cumulative creativity, and for more nice areas of study, it allows for other readers to get access to already limited work. The back and forth between authors to negotiate the extent to which one can draw reference to another's work is eradicated here. This is evident in the way Caribbean musicians circulate beats through networks to encourage persons to build on them in some creative way. Open access licensing allows novice persons to access information, and this allows for an inclusive ecosystem that welcomes innovation and new perspectives. It is through open access licensing that there is a striking balance between preserving ownership and attribution rights and expanding access to information.

Universities are making use of open educational resources for students so that they can truly engage with the new concepts and ideas in their related field. For small developing states, this is crucial for maximising on the already limited literature available. For example, Caribbean perspectives in research have long been overlooked; however, with access to Caribbean thinking being easily accessible, we now have an emerging population of historically and socially aware Caribbean people. Our narratives that were once told from a lens of dependence on the metropoles have now been rewritten and shared globally through open-access licensing platforms. Intellectual property is no longer a restrictive tool, as open access licensing transforms it into an enabling framework that supports and encourages modern creativity and collaborative features of Caribbean innovation.

!AI! !Artificial Intelligence!

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is promoted for its efficiency and creativity, yet the use of AI contradicts efficiency and creativity.

Below I'll list some of my major concerns with AI:

Unoriginality and Ownership

AI platforms operate with a pool of information that often contains copyrighted works. It produces original content that has no clear author. Human originality is a key feature under traditional copyright principles. Therefore, without human touch, AI begins to dilute the humanistic aspect of the dataset and can even reproduce existing works without recognition for the owner, which goes against intellectual property law.

Erasure of Art

AI platforms have made it easy for creative works to be made. In doing so, artwork becomes watered down and generic, which takes away from the purpose of art to be used as a form of self-expression unique to the person. Digital artwork is becoming easily replaceable by AI, and the talents of artists are going overlooked. In Trinidad, the use of AI for promotion has become so rampant due to its speed and price. This might not be illegal; however, it showcases a rejected norm within artistic spaces being accepted in the mass media, which comes in the form of taking ownership of an artwork not produced by yourself. Though the argument is that the user inputs the data set, whatever artistic work comes out isn’t original and is simply generic, which isn’t favourable in artistic space.

Deepfakes

AI allows for scenarios and concepts to be put together and conceptualised. Therefore, it opened the floodgates, allowing the fabrication and realities of media to become one and leaving viewers unaware of its validity. Potential infringement exists in rights related to privacy and reputation, this is because deepfakes can be used to create harmful and illegal content based on real people and scenarios. Just because it is fake doesn’t make it okay, because the realistic aspect of AI blurs the line entirely between fact and fiction. Though it might be fake, the result is real-life interpretations and understandings of what is seen. Though the Copyright Act addresses ownership of works, it doesn’t account for the Negative uses of AI that create false narratives and hence, there is a major gap in the legislation to address rising concerns like deepfake porn and deepfake child pornography.

Sustainability of AI on the environment

The true horrors of AI are seen in the way convenience and speed are glamorised despite the harmful effects on the environment. There is a large need for the development of new computers and storage to account for AI software. This leads to the overheating of systems that work to support and facilitate AI platforms. The question then becomes, to what extent do we need to keep pushing ourselves to achieve convenience? When convenience is achieved, does the technological advancement outweigh the negative impact on the environment? The short answer is no, as these damages are irreversible and contribute to the decay of the planet.

Ultimately, copyright law is the starting point for understanding AI. Unfortunately, these laws are ill-equipped to address the complex nature of AI. There needs to be a limit set in the law to prevent AI platforms from being so heavily relied upon and to also limit the amount of environmental damage that is has on the planet.

★Platform LiabilitY for Online Content Providers

Platforms like Reddit and YouTube, among others, take a safe approach to liability for online content as they would remove infringing content upon notice, or they would even ban certain phrases or codes to prevent the sharing of certain content. But should these platforms be liable? Complete liability is impossible as it requires platforms to monitor content uploaded, which is labour-intensive and creates economic constraints.

Though in a digital space of algorithms, whereby content is curated, websites are no longer passive. The profitability from user engagement and monetisation of content means that, despite it being illegal or legal content, the argument for direct liability becomes stronger. For example, when I was younger, I was exposed to a sexually inappropriate TV show on YouTube that was uncensored. Back then, content was constantly being uploaded, and even gore videos were prominent. With legislative reform, however, imposing direct liability creates stronger moderation, as evident in the evolution of sites like YouTube. However, in doing so, there can be over-censorship of lawful content that takes away from freedom of expression. On YouTube, this has been an issue for content creators who speak on sensitive topics like abuse, crime, and psychological trauma. The issue comes when there is no differentiation between informative works and non-informative works. Like sites that make use of user moderation, like Reddit, content shared is well-balanced, mostly and results in a well-balanced approach to platform responsibility. For example, Reddit bans and suspends subreddits for engaging in illegal posts. When Reddit fails to do something about subreddits that are rogue, pressure is placed on the platform to do better. This balanced approach allows users to properly engage with the content and determine what is appropriate and what isn’t. For platforms that take no responsibility, however,

From a policy perspective, imposing direct liability could incentivise stronger content moderation systems and corporate responsibility. Yet, it also risks over-censorship, where platforms remove lawful content to avoid legal exposure, potentially undermining freedom of expression. A balanced approach may therefore be preferable: conditional liability that attaches where platforms fail to take reasonable steps to prevent or remove clearly illegal content, and user moderation to maintain smaller spaces and reject illegal online communities from being as prominent, thus creating an online space of accountability for users.

★Copyright and the Music InDustry

Under the Trinidad and Tobago Copyright Act, infringement occurs when a substantial part of the work is reproduced without permission. Influence and copying, however, seem to be hard to distinguish, as courts do not have a definite answer as to what a substantial part of another work is significant.

I am a fan of the genre depressive suicidal black metal (DSBM), which is largely repetitive in its atmospheric sound. Artists and bands tend to have similar sounds and often take from existing works to further create a depth of emptiness in their sound. For example, Xasthur's style is transformed into more recent sounds of DSBM, and new artists chase the same vibe and sound. These similarities don’t necessarily mean copyright infringement, as it reflects a genre-specific feature which isn’t protected under copyright. Infringement focuses on recognizability in the part of the work taken. So once there is a distinct sound or uniqueness to a song, there is no copyright infringement. However, for genres like DSBM that rely on the same mood, tone, and style to portray emotions, within the community this is understood to be influence rather than copying. Therefore, to better account for reproduction infringement, the line between influence and copying can be better explained and defined in the spaces and communities of genres. This creates a norm for what is and isn’t okay, and this largely comes from persons who engage in the musical works and create them, rather than relying solely on legislative interpretation. Additionally, with the emergence of new genres and the popularity and rise of niche genres, the established customs within the community guide new artists and listeners as to what is and isn’t accepted. Without this, artists rely on judicial interpretation, which is problematic as they risk creative inspiration being labelled as infringement. Like most artworks, music isn’t constrained, and therefore, the possibilities are endless. The law cannot account for this however, through general legislation that prohibits stealing, together with community-based norms, the law can adapt to reflect this evolving culture of music that we know today.

★Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and NFTs: Let the Scam Wars Begin!

Cryptocurrency, as a form of digital value, is not protected by intellectual property law. Cryptocurrency exists as a decentralised digital medium of exchange, and it doesn’t fit within the scope of the Copyright Act of Trinidad and Tobago. The law limits copyright to literary, artistic, musical and dramatic works, which cryptocurrency doesn’t directly fit into since it is a means of digital exchange. Interestingly, however, under the scope of coding, blockchain systems can be interpreted as literary works given their originality and unchangeable nature.

So while cryptocurrency isn’t protected, when figures like Logan Paul, Ice Poseidon and IShowSpeed create and become associated with cryptocurrency, intellectual property issues are raised not in the coin itself but the artwork and branding of the NFT. NFTs then make a link to the ownership of the token but not the copyright of the artwork. I always thought cryptocurrency meant the ownership of the artwork, however, looking back on how public figures would promote these coins, the branding behind coins drives the appeal to the NFT. Because I was unaware of it, I assumed incorrectly. This puts into perspective situations where persons scammed viewers into false profitability and ownership of a coin. When persons with younger audiences engage in this, it raises legal questions and questions of equity. So while Cryptocurrency doesn’t fall within the scope of intellectual property, legal mechanisms should be created to address the ethical use and promotion of the coins. In doing so, the no longer becomes a false pretence as to the ownership of the artwork, and rather the subject is made clear that the coin as a means of exchange is what is owned.

Investigating CryptoZoo

YouTube · Coffeezilla4.5M+ followers

★Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic ResourcEs

Traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), when falling within the scope of existing intellectual property frameworks, reveal both shortcomings and adaptability of modern intellectual property laws. The reality is that statutes try to fill the gaps, but socially, they fail to account for the communal and generational shared nature of traditional knowledge and expression. Under the Copyright Act of Trinidad and Tobago, protection is granted to “original intellectual creations” which include musical, artistic and literary works. TK and TCE are evolving and community-driven; the current framework limits expression to that of authorship and doesn’t consider the shared practices that deserve recognition. At the international stage, the TRIPs Agreement promotes individualist concepts, but for us here in the Caribbean, it ignores a large part of our culture with emerged because of the sharing and mixing of knowledge and cultural expressions. The spiritual and communal aspect of traditional knowledge resonates within me, and if TK and TCE were to be adjusted into intellectual property frameworks, the essence would be lost. When legal protection attempts to fit communal works into individual ownership, issues of appropriation emerge and can destroy the art of TK and TCE. For these knowledges to persist, the law must take a sui-generis approach to meet the needs of ever-evolving traditional work.

For example, in the game Ghost of Tsushima, the cultural representation drives the story as it is embedded into the way the characters perform swordsmanship skills and make use of traditional literary works such as haikus. The artistic vision of the game, however, transforms these traditional norms into a storyline that constantly juxtaposes tradition with modernity and adaptation. The game unironically serves as a metaphor for how TKs and TCEs can be preserved in the creation of new narratives without limiting their origins and instead building on them. Again, a video game shows the need for well-developed lore and real-life associations to be transformed in a way that pays homage to cultural aspects that shape the customs and practices of people. In this case, the Ghost of Tsushima serves as an example of innovation getting traditional knowledge correct, and it sets a standard for other video games to follow in a similar fashion, using tradition to connect to modern realities.

PDF | Video games have evolved into a cultural medium that not only entertains but also conveys history and tradition in unique, interactive

★To Be or not to Be Trademarked

Trademark law is designed to commodify, identify and brand. Traditionally, trademarks take the form of sounds, signs, or words, for example. The emergence of non-conventional trademarks has now created a grey area with respect to how and if trademarks can be granted. I am incredibly curious about the relationship between registered non-conventional trademarks, such as faces and body parts. I do understand the argument for protection, as celebrities and popular figures can trademark their faces or body parts as part of the commercialisation of their brand. For example, people like Michael Jordan, Paris Hilton, and Kim Kardashian have all built brands tied to their likeness. Kardashian's body allows her to venture into a successful shapewear brand characterised by the nude body aesthetic that relies on her physical look. Her body is also notable on its own as she is identifiable by her body shape. For these persons, faces can satisfy the function of a trademark in distinguishing goods. Ironically, the issue of trademarking bodies in this manner raises copyright issues. For example, the Kardashian's body was used as a reference in the creation of the mould for her perfume bottle, and because another company had a female body-shaped bottle, many people criticised her for the lack of creativity and the blatant copying. In such a case, then does it mean that I can't similarly use a mould of myself because it’ll be too close to another body? And what if someone has a rare body mutation, can there be an exception here? In my opinion it cannot as if we allow exceptions for differences like this, it can open a flood gate of social problems relating to people's psychological desire to create and obtain a ‘unique’ body or face. Furthermore, when considering cosmetic surgery, persons who wish to have similar features as someone with a trademarked face or body would now be limited in the way they can express their own body autonomy.

If we look at the Trademark Act of Trinidad and Tobago, there is a clear and distinct requirement of a trademark that doesn’t govern human identity. If exclusive rights over a face or body are allowed, the scope of intellectual property extends far past trademarks and delves into other concepts like passing off. Furthermore, the inherent association with faces and personalities can lead to ethical concerns about dignity and autonomy. This is apparent when we look at the legacy of dead celebrities. The Juice World x Fortnight collab received major backlash for this, as the estate of the deceased artist allowed for the image and likeness of the person to be used in ways fans considered to be distasteful. While there isn’t anything inherently wrong with it, it doesn’t remove the human aspect of selling out one's identity. Additionally, enforcement becomes a challenge as these things largely remain subjective and will change depending on the jurisdiction. Broad protection can stifle creativity and extending protection to bodies and faces risks blurring the line between commercialisation and identity. Ultimately, while the legislation allows for an expansive interpretation of trademarks, extending protection to faces and body parts risks blurring the boundary between commercial signs and human identity. A cautious and restrained approach is therefore necessary.

Random Thought:

The law and society need to find a way to balance both. To me, I think social norms should regulate these trademarks, or it simply shouldn’t be allowed wholeheartedly. In the game Death Stranding, face scanning and motion capture mimic the facial expressions and features of actors who play the characters. None of the actors has trademarks over the characters despite their likeness being completely replicated. Sony holds the trademark to the game and its characters. The social norms surrounding the creator of the game, however, can justify the ease of production and the lack of intellectual property concerns with respect to using the faces of actors.

★LIfe-Saving Patents

Life-saving patents to me is a very tense topic because the nature of it is good, yet the industry has a culture of capitalism, like most major money-making industries. I believe that developing countries have an opportunity to capitalise on their position as once ‘underdeveloped’.

Dr Koo questioned, “Should developed countries have a duty to provide access to life-saving drugs to developing countries?”

My answer? Yes, definitely, absolutely.

In answering that, I want to highlight that life-saving drugs intersect intellectual property law, public health, and global economic justice. This is because, on one hand, we want to uphold patent-protecting laws, yet on the other hand, we want to encourage and incentivise pharmaceutical innovation so that new drugs can be made. The reality is that the constant need for life-saving drugs results in the granting of exclusive rights to patent holders, which promotes innovation. However, in doing so, and because of the social value of life-saving drugs, it can lead to overly expensive drug prices, which limit access to medicine in economically well-off countries. Even still, marginalised persons from developed countries that produce and invest in life-saving drugs do not have full access to them in comparison to those of higher economic standing. Therefore, for developing countries, the gap becomes wider between those who can access and those who cannot access certain medicines. For example, life-saving drugs are not easily attainable at the store, instead, it's something you travel for, and it's something you order online, and these activities are not everyday norms for the average Trinidadian like me. We lived it during COVID-19, and I think that’s when I really started to understand how the creation and distribution of these drugs work in the real world.

You might be thinking that my answer to Dr Koos question being ‘yes’ was misguided, especially since I recognised that developing countries also experience the effects of the pharmaceutical industry on their people, and equal access to the drugs isn’t the reality for many. The Doha Declaration clearly states that the TRIPS Agreement must be interpreted with a level of flexibility because there should be the promotion of equal access to medicine for all. However, legal reforms only go so far, and ironically, these laws make it, in my opinion, harder for developing countries to navigate these fields because they are never on equal footing with the rest of the world.

There is an ethical need to assist developed countries in promoting global equity and access to health. However, I want to propose an inherent duty that developed states owe to underdeveloped countries. In the Caribbean, for example, the region can challenge the global space by aligning it with the fight for reparations. Part of the reparations debate is how countries can be paid back when there is a threat of corruption, as money does not mean it'll go into the development of the country. The reparations commission has proposed alternative means to assist countries in the form of shared technologies, education and labour. Having a guaranteed set of life-saving medicine per year, for example, can reduce death rates and improve quality of life because where previously a select few would have access, now it's guaranteed that a quota is met. Though I disagree with seeing the lives of persons be boiled down to numbers and amounts of dosages, the pharmaceutical companies and the global north promote that mentality by forcing persons who cannot afford to pay for certain drugs to die.

Despite this, I think we need to understand that when it comes to these kinds of drugs, the world isn’t inherently structured and doesn’t exist to make everyone live long lives. Hence, to balance the need for more lifesaving drugs and access to said drugs, flexibility between companies and countries must be established so that profits can be made without being exploitative of the lives of others.

★ Are Carnival Costumes ArT?

For a Caribbean person not to see carnival costumes as art, it must boil down to a misinformed definition of art. Carnival costumes are, at their core, artistic representations of a legacy of oppression that people in the Caribbean have passed on from generation to generation. For my first journal entry, I want to pay particular attention to the art of wire bending. When we look at the role intellectual property plays in the protection of carnival costumes, traditional forms of artistic craftsmanship, such as wire bending, raise a bit of a question in terms of how protection can be afforded, and to what extent. Wire bending itself is a highly skilled and labour-intensive art form that takes years to master and requires technique, creativity and realism. Wire bending has always been something that has intrigued me ever since I was a young girl, as I saw my sister’s hands turn red and double in size, learning the technique. I remember thinking wire bending was going to be the thing that brought down Trinidad and Tobago because it was a dying art form. I didn’t understand the decline, but if filled me with so much anxiety and fear for part of my culture to fizzle out. Today, wire bending has come quite a long way as projects like ‘The Wireman Initiative’ attempt to provide cultural education of carnival by allowing hands-on, transformative ways for people to engage in traditional artistic expression.

Therefore, the art form is being promoted to encourage aspiring artists to make use of the indigenous practice. Despite this, the laws that cover artistic works fail to meet the innovative aspects of wire bending that artists are promoting. In understanding the relationship to intellectual property, it's clear that wire bending possesses the originality aspect, however, there is a grey area when it comes to the requirements under copyright law. When art becomes more abstract its hard for laws to properly govern these concepts. Wire bending does not require artistic expression, only, as there is a practical side of it that requires an understanding of engineering, physics and architecture. Wires for costumes are the skeleton for masqueraders on carnival Monday and Tuesday. Wire benders must make their artwork not just aesthetically beautiful but also movable and stable. The very nature of it in this case excludes wire bending from the closed list approach that Trinidad's legislation provides. The law requires fixation, however, the art of wire bending promotes flexibility with an impeccable foundation to allow the additional materials on the costume to move and flow with the body that parades it. Therefore, the functionality of carnival costumes threatens protection. Furthermore, wire bending is just one aspect of the costume and together with the additional layers of creativity, authorship and ownership, do not become clear rights as multiple people contribute. The costume cannot exist without the wired structure however, the appliques bring the wired creation to life and create movement.

Intellectual property laws need to accommodate practices like wire bending. Not just for its indigenous aspect but also for its practical aspect, as people rely on their artwork for economic stability. Our laws need to be holistic, recognising collective ownership and acknowledging the abstract principles of artistic work. With each passing year that we try to educate people on wire bending, innovation progresses, and we remain 5 years behind. Like the steel pan, the artistic works that come out of carnival costumes need to be recognised for their unique and artistic construction. In my deliberation of the topic, I don’t think our laws can fulfil that role independently from meeting the societal and cultural norms of artists and innovators.

#carnival costumes #mas #Caribbean #wire bending

Blog Overview

This is my first entry, but it's more of a chit-chat. Just a PSA to anyone reading, I don't think anything written here is perfection, and I'd really love it if you could comment and ask me questions and change my mind on certain views I might have. I'd also really appreciate it if you could share your own thoughts on the topics that I'll be covering

Oh yeah and here's a list of the topics I'll be covering in this blog!

★Protection of carnival costumes and other works of artistic craftsmanship

★Life-saving patents

★Non-conventional trade marks and beyond

★Traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources.

★Blockchain, cryptocurrencies and NFTs

★Copyright and the music industry

★Platform liability for online content providers

★Artificial intelligence

★Open access licensing

★Social norms, innovation and intellectual property

#sorry if i spell things wring #wrong*#intellectual property is RAD!

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

⛧☾༺ Kafi's_E♰Portfolio ༻☽⛧