A Dictionary of Intellectual Property Law (A review)

Peter Groves recently* published the Dictionary of Intellectual Property Law. This book is an extremely useful compendium of all the mysterious IP terms which are commonly used by lawyers, in contracts, in judgments and in government consultations in the UK, Europe and USA. Each concept has a pithy description including cross references to other terms where this would be useful.

The dictionary even covers things you might not, at first glance, associate with IP law such as AdWords and zoetropes. Naturally, the IPKat gets a special mention!

 If you want a second opinion here are some of the (publisher selected) comments on the book when it was first published:

‘Confused between community patent review and community patents? Lost in a thicket of dockets, rocket or otherwise? Let Peter Groves’ Dictionary of Intellectual Property Law be your guide. Filling almost 500 often lighthearted, occasionally acerbic, but invariably fact-packed pages, the book takes you from the ActionAid Chip and the Air Pirates case through BIRPI, Cognating, Dockets, Evergreening; Jepson, Pedrick’s cat and Simkins; PHOSITA, Trundlehumpers, the verb “to Uncopyright” and X-Patents, all the way to Zwart maken. Essential reading.’ – David Musker, Partner, RGC Jenkins & Co.

 ‘Do not be put off by the word “dictionary”. This is a fascinating, witty and erudite little volume, packed with interesting and useful information on the whole gamut of intellectual property. It leaves one (this one anyway) hungering for more and wanting to delve more deeply into fields that have nothing to do with earning one’s daily bread.’ – Tony McStea, Senior Patent Attorney, Global Patents, Givaudan Schweiz AG

If you bought the book and it’s missing a key term or the definition hasn't helped to untangle to confusion, fear not. New definitions are suggested and refined on the IP Dictionary blawg (www.dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.co.uk) where users can even suggest new terms for inclusion in the next edition.

This book should be of use for everyone interested in the world of IP law from the aspiring student, to the lawyer. It is written so clearly and comprehensively that it is hopefully also useful for artists seeking to better understand and enforce their rights.

The paperback edition is available online for around £20. The author, Peter Groves, amongst many other things, writes for the Ipso Jure blog (www.ipsojure.co.uk).

 *OK, so not that recently, Feb 2011. But the paperback edition is much more recent!

More legal protection for artists?

The director of the United States Copyright Office, Maria A. Pallante, has called for the U.S. Copyright Law to be updated.

In a statement to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Committee on the Judicary, Pallante has submitted that the current law, the majority of which was enacted way back in 1976, is outdated and no longer provides effective protection to authors of copyright works.

Pallante says:

It is both possible and necessary to have a copyright law that combines safeguards for free expression, guarantees of due process, mechanisms for access, and respect for intellectual property.

To this end, I would like to state something that I hope is uncontroversial. The issues of authors are intertwined with the interests of the public. As the first beneficiaries of the copyright law, they are not a counterweight to the public interest but instead are at the very center of the equation. In the words of the Supreme Court, "[t]he immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." Congress has a duty to keep authors in its mind's eye, including songwriters, book authors, filmmakers, photographers, and visual artists. A law that does not provide for authors would be illogical — hardly a copyright law at all.

Pallante also points out that Congress will not need to start from scratch, as it has already laid the groundwork for many of the core issues, with reports in progress on a number of topics including resale royalties for visual artists.

Pallante's statement will no doubt raise a lot of debate in both the IP community as well as the art community. It is unlikely, however, that we will see any immediate effects.

Pallante's full statement can be found here.

Commentary from the Copyright Alliance here.

Rubens Causes More Controversy as Artwork Owned by A Victim of the Nazis to Remain in Britain

Following on from my earlier post, it seems that Rubens was causing a stir before Christmas too.

His work entitled The Coronation of the Virgin, an oil sketch measuring 46cm x 61.4cm, was painted in or around 1613. While the painting is one of Rubens's lesser known works, it is considered important as it is part of a group of oil sketches by the German-born artist made in preparation for a series of larger paintings that decorated the ceiling of a Jesuit church in Antwerp destroyed by fire in the 18th century.

15 December 2010, after dispute between the Courtauld Institute and the family of its original owner, Parliament's Spoliation Advisory Panel ruled in favour of Courtauld Institute and as a result the historically important painting of the Virgin Mary stay in Britain. The full report of the Panel can be found here. Last year another painting formerly owned by the Jewish banker, Hans Makart's The Death of Pappenheim, was returned to the same family by a decision of Vienna Municipal Council.

The Spoliation Advisory Panel, chaired by Sir David Hirst, was established in February 2000 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB) to help resolve claims for cultural property looted during the Nazi era. On 12 April 2010 the Panel was dissolved as an advisory NDPB and reconstituted as a group of expert advisers which continues under the name 'Spoliation Advisory Panel'. Sir David Hirst continues to be chairman, the Panel's membership remains as before and the Panel remains the advisory body designated by the Secretary of State under Section 3 of the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009.

The Panel resolves claims from people, or their heirs, who lost property during the Nazi era, which is now held in UK national collections. The Panel is appointed by the Secretary of State. It considers both legal and non-legal obligations, such as the moral strength of the claimant’s case, and whether any moral obligation rests on the holding institution.

The painting came to Britain after it was acquired at auction at Sotheby's by a noted collector, Count Antoine Seilern, who bequeathed it to the Courtauld Institute in 1978. The painting’s original owner was Jewish Banker Herbert Gutmann, the Director of the Dresdner bank until 1931 and son its founder. Gutmann himself was a collector of Islamic, European and decorative arts. After his father died he was appointed the director of Dresdner Bank until 1931 when he stepped down in the wake of the German banking crisis. Having sold his art collection in Berlin in April 1934, he fled Nazi Germany for the UK in October 1936. He died here six years later. His brother and his wife, who remained in Germany, were murdered by the Nazis. Gutmann's remaining assets were seized by the Nazis in 1940.

Gutmann, described by a propaganda poster as a "profiteer and a Jewish manipulator" was feared by Hitler as someone, along with his contemporaries, who might support a coup against him. Indeed in 1934, together with other members of centrist and right-wing parties, several of Gutmann's contemporaries were murdered on the orders of Hitler. Gutmann’s descendants maintained that he was forced to sell the painting in haste before the Nazis seized the collection and because he was forced to flee Nazi Germany and as such the Courtauld was obliged to return the work.

Central to the row over ownership was whether Gutmann had been forced to sell the painting because of antisemitism. The panel heard evidence that Dresdner Bank became "Nazified" and was encouraged to persecute Jewish employees. The panel report notes: "While there is no documentary record of Gutmann having owed any money to the Dresdner Bank before 1933, documents start recording money owed by Gutmann from this point onwards, beginning with a debt, reported in July 1933, of 200,000 reichsmarks owed to a Dresdner Bank share syndicate set up in 1927, in which Gutmann was a participant."

The panel also heard Gutmann’s wealth was eroded after unsuccessful investments in Egyptian cotton and that Gutmann sold his art collection as a “cold financial calculation” because of these financial losses, rather than due to anti-Semitism. The panel agreed with his and saw no grounds for criticism of the Courtauld. In their final conclusion considered the moral strength of the Claimants’ case insufficient to warrant a recommendation that The Coronation of the Virgin should be transferred to them or that an ex gratia payment should be made to them.

Original Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk and http://www.guardian.co.uk

Seeds for thought

Since the opening of this year’s Unilever Series display in the Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall on 12 October, already several different legal issues have been raised.

Ai Weiwei's Sunflower Seeds installation basically consists of carpeting the entire Turbine Hall with 100 million individually hand crafted, but each apparently identical, porcelain sunflower seeds.



The original idea was that visitors would be able to walk over and handle the sunflower seeds. This obviously prompted the question as to whether it was ok to take a sunflower? – Just as a souvenir, of course … After all there are 100 million of them…

On first impressions, you’d think this clearly amounts to stealing. Or even vandalism. Yet it is reported that the artist himself does not think this is so clear, having said:

"If I was in the audience I would definitely want to take a seed. But for the museum, it is a total work, and taking a seed would affect the work. Institutions have their own policies. But I know I would want to take a seed."

Then, there are the health and safety laws which have to be considered. Indeed, within a few days of the exhibition opening, the Turbine Hall was closed, preventing visitors from walking over the sunflower seeds. Eventually, it was admitted that it was feared that the ceramic dust resulting from visitors walking over the sunflower seeds gave rise to certain health and safety concerns. In a statement, the gallery said:

"Although porcelain is very robust, we have been advised that the interaction of visitors with the sculpture can cause dust which could be damaging to health following repeated inhalation over a long period of time. In consequence, Tate, in consultation with the artist, has decided not to allow members of the public to walk across the sculpture."

But finally, from an Intellectual Property perspective, the work gives rise to a number of fundamental questions, including: What IP rights subsist in the work? and Who owns those rights?

The named artist, Ai Weiwei, has confessed that he made “perhaps three or four” of the sunflower seeds and, in fact, he had the seeds made in the Chinese city of Jingdezhen, also known as the “porcelain city” of China. Is it really enough to have merely had the idea to be considered as the creator or author of a work? Or perhaps Ai Weiwei commissioned the work and had the rights assigned to him.

So while it is great to ponder the nature and meaning of art, Sunflower Seeds demonstrates that it is also important to consider the legal aspects.