This chapter introduces the two types of rights in copyright : economic and moral rights. The chapter considers to what extent these rights are rights of property (the conceptual question).

There are many notions of property rights. The critical concept in this book is an Economic Property Right, which is defined as an individuals ability in expected terms to exercise a choice with respect to a commondity. Such rights depend on the individuals legal and moral rights to that commodity. Such rights are complicated because they might be spread out across different subsets of a commoditys attributes, and different people might hold different types of rights to the commodity. Furthermore, the strength of any given property right can vary and is under the choice of various people.

The book looks at how copyright laws are perceived within the graffiti and street art subcultures, and how artists and writers view certain creative aspects of their own practice. By drawing on the author’s ethnographic research and fieldwork, the book gives voice to the main actors of these communities and highlights their feelings and opinions towards issues which until recently they have often felt far from their everyday life and practice. This book, in other words, brings the ‘voice from the street’ into the debate over the legal (and non-legal) protection of street art and graffiti. The monograph also touches on related and complementary issues, such as the ‘gallerisation’ and economic exploitation of these forms of art (e.g. via merchandising) and the curious similarities between the graffiti and advertising worlds. The book includes inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary perspectives, showing how different disciplines can interact. The ethnographic research carried out by the author gives the monograph a strong empirical touch, thus providing insight and perspectives from the street art and graffiti subcultures.

The chapter highlights street and graffiti artists’ opinions about protecting their art in case of misattribution, unwelcome associations as well as destruction, removal and relocation of their pieces. It highlights that several of these artists (but not all) value the bond that attaches them to their creation and show interest in the moral rights of attribution and integrity as tools to protect and preserve their art. Particular attention is devoted to how street and graffiti artists would react if their pieces are destroyed or removed from their original location in the street.

This chapter examines the application of the principles underlying artistic freedom in the public space, as well as graffiti and street art. To which extent are States obliged to promote, protect or safeguard artistic freedom when clashing with public interests, public order or public morality standards? Does the qualification ‘illicit’ or ‘commissioned’ play a role in preserving artistic freedom? And do these obligations go as far as safeguarding the individual artist’s right to artistic freedom in case of unpopular, controversial or offensive art and performances in the public space – or urban planning considerations, as in the case of the ‘La Demeure du Chaos’ (Abode of Chaos)? Furthermore, the chapter discusses the question of hateful, racist, sexist, misogynous or homophobic art in the public space, epsecially in light of State obligations to raise awareness and eliminate stereotyping. Last, drawing on numerous case studies such as the Great Wall of Los Angeles and murals painted in post-aparheid South Africa, the chapter explores potential obligations to preserve and safeguard street art – and artists’ frededom – especially in the case of large murals reflective of broad community participation and those that reflect human rights ideals.

An inquiry into the rationale for the protection of animals in wartime confronts a key challenge: tThe progressive philosophical reflection on the improvement of the position of animals in (human) societies is at odds with the human-centred nature of international humanitarian law. Against this background, the chapter critically engages with possible reasons for animal protection in wartime: anthropocentric approaches, speciesism, anthropomorphism and a rights-based approach. It analyses to what extent these paradigms are reflected both in lex lata and in claims de lege ferenda. The chapter also examines to what extent these approaches can be brought in line with the overall objectives of international humanitarian law and reflects upon the challenges that arise from such an alignment. It favours a straightforward reform approach which aims at a specific convention for the protection of animal rights in wartimes.

Chapter 4 considers the human rights relevant to research using linked data without consent; how these rights come into tension with each other and other relevant interests; and how these tensions should be considered and resolved. It notes the emphasis placed in the West on civil and political rights, such as the right to privacy, and the lack of attention to economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to health, and how this has resulted in an unbalanced approach to the regulation of research.

Chapter 4 considers the human rights relevant to research using linked data without consent; how these rights come into tension with each other and other relevant interests; and how these tensions should be considered and resolved. It notes the emphasis placed in the West on civil and political rights, such as the right to privacy, and the lack of attention to economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to health, and how this has resulted in an unbalanced approach to the regulation of research.

Although economics models goods as unified, in fact artworks are goods that are made up of many different rights. Here, we consider intellectual property, specifically copyright, as part of the bundle of rights. We review fair use and expand to discuss other forms of property artists have in their work, including resale royalties and fractional equity. We consider case studies of Richard Prince, Takis, and the Art Workers’ Coalition, the Siegelaub–Projansky Artist’s Contract, Adrian Piper, Betty Parsons Gallery, Green Gallery, and Shepard Fairey. Although this chapter focuses on a US legal context, it also includes international treaties and systems of moral rights.

In this chapter, I endeavor to weave together a complex series of European legal developments connected with the emergence of intellectual property. I begin by tracing the emergence of intellectual property in France, focusing on the context for this development in the revolutionary processes through which a new French nation was formed, and on the ambivalent implications of national codification for intellectual property in France. I then go back to the Reformation, pointing out the significance of Calvinist and Lutheran legal dcotrines for jurisprudential traditions carrying new conceptions of sovereignty and natural rights. Shifting to the legacies of these traditions for legal and administrative theories that developed in German-speaking lands, we see early foundations for a new jurisprudential narrative that becomes vital to the substantive rationale of intellectual property in our own time: progressivism. The upshot of these complex developments is a paradoxical linkage between bureaucratic impersonalism in the formal application of legal doctrines and an idealizing personalism in the agentive capacities of individual human beings: the idolizing of "genius."

An important starting point is our claim that Article 10 of the Berne Convention creates an obligation on Members of the Union to recognise a limitation on the copyright that allows for quotation. The proposition is based primarily on the language used: Article 10 begins with the words, ‘It shall be permissible … ’. This imperative language may be contrasted with Article 10(2) Berne, which, in relation to exceptions for education states: ‘It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union … to permit’. Similar permissive language is also found in Article 10bis in relation to reporting current events and Article 9(2), which allows exceptions to the reproduction right ‘in certain special cases’. The language of Article 10(1) is distinct and clearly reads as mandatory rather than permissive. Although there is barely any reference to the mandatory nature of the exception in the Stockholm travaux, the limitation is described in terms that reflect its basis in the entitlement of the user.

This chapter has two primary purposes. The first is to address the question of whether the psychology community has a responsibility to promote and protect human rights and, if so, what this means for psychology and for psychologists in the context of an increasingly globalizing world. The second is to examine how psychological ethics can support human rights in psychology and help further the promotion of human rights for the benefit of humanity. The chapter opens with a brief history of the origins and development of psychological ethics and human rights, and the implications of these histories for their contemporary meanings. Then, using the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the primary references, the ways in which psychological ethics and human rights complement and differ from each other are examined. The chapter ends with a series of recommendations for the integration of human rights into psychological ethics and for psychology’s involvement in the protection and promotion of human rights. The recommendations emphasize the importance of enlightened globalization, as well as the importance of psychology and the human rights movement working together to serve humanity.

Legal transplantation is a common, though contested, method of legal development, connecting sometimes disparate legal cultures. The incorporation, in 2000, of authors’ moral rights into Australian copyright law was one such transplantation. The present chapter discusses the process, asking whether moral rights themselves have been affected by the transplantation, what effect the transplantation has had or might have on Australian copyright law and whether the transplant can be called a success.

Georgian culture is ancient and unique, stretching back for millennia. Poetry, music, and dance are integral parts of Georgian life. A strong literary tradition arises out of the Georgian language and alphabet. The world-renowned epic poem “The Man in the Panther’s Skin” was written by the medieval Georgian poet Shota Rustaveli, and occupies a special place in Georgian culture: quotations are used as proverbs, characters have become role models, and the poem is still one of the most-read books in many Georgian families. Georgian people are also proud of their rich musical culture, which has its roots in ancient times. Throughout the history of Georgia, artists have always played a special role in the development of Georgian society and cultural identity. Despite repeated periods of foreign occupation, the distinctiveness of Georgian culture has been preserved, mainly because of a strong sense of national identity and unity forged by artists.

From the legal historian’s point of view, we can say that economy and society “shape” law, or that law “influences” economy and society, or that law and economy and society are all “mutually constitutive.”2 These assertions particularly apply to the examination of moral rights in the legal history of copyright law in Hungary and, more generally, in other Central and Eastern European countries. These countries are unique in that they share a socialist period in their history, which points to an interesting connection between the moral rights of authors and the struggle to overcome political repression. As Sundara Rajan has pointed out, with bitter irony, the ideological aspects of socialism imbued all human expression with powerful political connotations.3