Jurisprudence of intellectual property in research: African, western and modern perspectives

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
B. Mukoro, N. Nwafor, T. O. Umahi, G. Onuoha, B. Otunta
{"title":"Jurisprudence of intellectual property in research: African, western and modern perspectives","authors":"B. Mukoro, N. Nwafor, T. O. Umahi, G. Onuoha, B. Otunta","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is disagreement about entitlement to, and the scope, of intellectual property rights over research knowledge. This article explores jurisprudential perspectives on ownership of research knowledge. It also features the conflict between African and western conceptions of intellectual property, and how this has affected the exploitation of indigenous knowledge with the resultant impact on traditional knowledge institutions. In modern times, the allocation of rights is relatively settled in such relationships as between employer and employee, the researcher and the funder. Between researcher and publisher, digital technology, which ensures wider circulation, has led to claims for a re-definition of the relationship under which the researcher traditionally licensed his copyright to the publisher. A similar re-definition is called for with respect to research subjects in certain research environments. In particular, the result of research conducted with user-generated data in multi-sided business models like social media sites is implicated. The research finds that there is no generic solution that will apply to all relationships but that laws should be tailored to each relationship pair, in line with the suggestions in this paper. African traditional knowledge is denied protection by criteria such as non-disclosure because of the African collectivist notion of person. While Africans are collectivist, westerners are individualistic. It is concluded that on closer inspection there are analogues in African and western notions of intellectual property that could be used to resolve seeming conflicts and protect traditional knowledge.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"10 1","pages":"200-216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is disagreement about entitlement to, and the scope, of intellectual property rights over research knowledge. This article explores jurisprudential perspectives on ownership of research knowledge. It also features the conflict between African and western conceptions of intellectual property, and how this has affected the exploitation of indigenous knowledge with the resultant impact on traditional knowledge institutions. In modern times, the allocation of rights is relatively settled in such relationships as between employer and employee, the researcher and the funder. Between researcher and publisher, digital technology, which ensures wider circulation, has led to claims for a re-definition of the relationship under which the researcher traditionally licensed his copyright to the publisher. A similar re-definition is called for with respect to research subjects in certain research environments. In particular, the result of research conducted with user-generated data in multi-sided business models like social media sites is implicated. The research finds that there is no generic solution that will apply to all relationships but that laws should be tailored to each relationship pair, in line with the suggestions in this paper. African traditional knowledge is denied protection by criteria such as non-disclosure because of the African collectivist notion of person. While Africans are collectivist, westerners are individualistic. It is concluded that on closer inspection there are analogues in African and western notions of intellectual property that could be used to resolve seeming conflicts and protect traditional knowledge.
研究中的知识产权法学:非洲、西方和现代视角
对于研究知识的知识产权权利和范围存在分歧。本文探讨了研究知识所有权的法理学视角。它还描述了非洲和西方知识产权观念之间的冲突,以及这种冲突如何影响了对本土知识的利用,从而对传统知识机构产生了影响。在现代社会中,权利的分配在雇主与雇员、研究者与资助者等关系中相对稳定。在研究人员和出版商之间,数字技术确保了更广泛的流通,这导致人们要求重新定义研究人员将其版权授权给出版商的传统关系。在某些研究环境中,需要对研究对象进行类似的重新定义。特别是,在社交媒体网站等多边商业模式中对用户生成数据进行的研究结果受到了影响。研究发现,没有适用于所有关系的通用解决方案,法律应该针对每个关系对进行调整,这与本文的建议一致。由于非洲人的集体主义观念,非洲传统知识被诸如保密等标准拒绝保护。非洲人是集体主义者,而西方人是个人主义者。它的结论是,经过更仔细的检查,在非洲和西方的知识产权概念中有类似的东西可以用来解决表面上的冲突和保护传统知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信