Tekijänoikeuden erikoiskirjasto

 
Not for Designers : On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It
Muistilista on tyhjä
Vis
Hylly
  • MARGONI SA-JIPI
Henkilönnimi
  • Margoni, Thomas.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö
  • Not for Designers : On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It
Julkaistu
  • 2013.
Ulkoasutiedot
  • 225-248.
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa
  • Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, ISSN 2190-3387 ; 4(3)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms.
  • Design rights represent an interesting example of how the EU legislature has successfully regulated an otherwise heterogeneous field of law. Yet this type of protection is not for all. The tools created by EU intervention have been drafted paying much more attention to the industry sector rather than to designers themselves. In particular, modern, digitally based, individual or small-sized, 3D printing, open designers and their needs are largely neglected by such legislation. There is obviously nothing wrong in drafting legal tools around the needs of an industrial sector with an important role in the EU economy, on the contrary, this is a legitimate and good decision of industrial policy. However, good legislation should be fair, balanced, and (technologically) neutral in order to offer suitable solutions to all the players in the market, and all the citizens in the society, without discriminating the smallest or the newest: the cost would be to stifle innovation. The use of printing machinery to manufacture physical objects created digitally thanks to computer programs such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has been in place for quite a few years, and it is actually the standard in many industrial fields, from aeronautics to home furniture. The change in recent years that has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting factor is a combination between the opularization of such technologies (price, size, usability, quality) and the diffusion of a culture based on access to and reuse of knowledge. We will call this blend Open Design. It is probably still too early, however, to say whether 3D printing will be used in the future to refer to a major event in human history, or instead will be relegated to a lonely Wikipedia entry similarly to 3Betamax2 (copyright scholars are familiar with it for other reasons). It is not too early, however, to develop a legal analysis that will hopefully contribute to clarifying the major issues found in current EU design law structure, why many modern open designers will probably find better protection in copyright, and whether they can successfully rely on open licenses to achieve their goals. With regard to the latter point, we will use Creative Commons (CC) licenses to test our hypothesis due to their unique characteristic to be modular, i.e. to have different license elements (clauses) that licensors can choose in order to adapt the license to their own needs.”
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Elektronisen aineiston sijainti ja käyttö (URI)
  • https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-4-3-2013/3845/margoni.pdf Linkki verkkoaineistoon 
*00003453nab a22002894a 4500
*00111188
*00520201106111829.0
*008170118s2013\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035  $a23877
*035  $a(PLib-conv)0000023877
*0410 $aeng
*090  $aOMA:SA-JIPI
*1001 $aMargoni, Thomas.
*24510$aNot for Designers  :$bOn the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It /$cThomas Margoni.
*260  $c2013.
*300  $a225-248.
*4901 $aJournal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law,$x2190-3387 ;$v4(3)
*520  $aDesign rights represent an interesting example of how the EU legislature has successfully regulated an otherwise heterogeneous field of law. Yet this type of protection is not for all. The tools created by EU intervention have been drafted paying much more attention to the industry sector rather than to designers themselves. In particular, modern, digitally based, individual or small-sized, 3D printing, open designers and their needs are largely neglected by such legislation. There is obviously nothing wrong in drafting legal tools around the needs of an industrial sector with an important role in the EU economy, on the contrary, this is a legitimate and good decision of industrial policy. However, good legislation should be fair, balanced, and (technologically) neutral in order to offer suitable solutions to all the players in the market, and all the citizens in the society, without discriminating the smallest or the newest: the cost would be to stifle innovation. The use of printing machinery to manufacture physical objects created digitally thanks to computer programs such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has been in place for quite a few years, and it is actually the standard in many industrial fields, from aeronautics to home furniture. The change in recent years that has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting factor is a combination between the opularization of such technologies (price, size, usability, quality) and the diffusion of a culture based on access to and reuse of knowledge. We will call this blend Open Design. It is probably still too early, however, to say whether 3D printing will be used in the future to refer to a major event in human history, or instead will be relegated to a lonely Wikipedia entry similarly to 3Betamax2 (copyright scholars are familiar with it for other reasons). It is not too early, however, to develop a legal analysis that will hopefully contribute to clarifying the major issues found in current EU design law structure, why many modern open designers will probably find better protection in copyright, and whether they can successfully rely on open licenses to achieve their goals. With regard to the latter point, we will use Creative Commons (CC) licenses to test our hypothesis due to their unique characteristic to be modular, i.e. to have different license elements (clauses) that licensors can choose in order to adapt the license to their own needs.”
*653  $aCREATIVE COMMONS
*653  $aDESIGN RIGHTS
*653  $aOPEN DESIGN
*8102 $aJournal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law,$x2190-3387 ;$v4(3)
*852  $hSA-JIPI$cMARGONI
*85640$uhttps://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-4-3-2013/3845/margoni.pdf$yLinkki verkkoaineistoon
*979  $a0000023877
*999  $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.
Vis
Lähetä