| Keywords [eng] |
Keywords: Intellectual Property Rights, International Harmonization of IPRs, European Union, IP regulatory Frameworks, Copyright, Trademark, Nigeria Copyright Commission, Conflict, Digital Technology. |
| Abstract [eng] |
CONCLUSION Intellectual property rights and freedom of expression are fundamental societal rights. Limiting speech requires stronger justification, and unauthorized use of works triggers legal action against right-holders. A taxonomy is proposed to balance public interest in freedom of expression and business of right-holders protecting their works. However, the struggle for relevance between these rights may lead to conflict or be prima facie. Copyright law restricts expression for legitimate reasons. It distinguishes between work substance and form, allowing the dissemination of ideas while restricting precise copying. It also provides for fair use of copyrighted work, including reproducing limited pieces. However, when a conflict arises, reproduction of protected works for enjoyment or expression violates the protected works. The conditions for using protected works are not sufficient for freedom of expression. This issue is also examined from a non-IPR perspective, such as a land property right, where no one claims it is necessary to violate a property right for freedom of expression. For example, Mr. B wishes to disagree with Mr. A. In doing so, Mr. B invades Mr. A’s land and protests in his garden. Typically, it will be argued that violating Mr. A’s property is unnecessary because other techniques can achieve the same expressive goal. Now, does a speech that uses copyrighted material need it for expression? Why not use your own words? The conflict in copyright can be attributed to misinterpreting the demands of either rights. The definition of rights relates to the presence of conflict. Two approaches can be taken: generic, which questions whether a creator should have copyright rights, and a set-based view, which evaluates each right separately. This approach could define copyright as a lesser collection of rights compatible with free expression. However, some views believe rights cannot conflict, such as the choice-based theory of rights, which suggests rights are mutually consistent within a single system, and the interest-based view, which claims that rights do not conflict. Conflict may appear but disappears when examined, and qualifying rights can prove they are not conflicting if there is a perception of conflict. Intellectual property (IP) is crucial for innovation and the economy of any nation. It encompasses various forms of intellectual property, such as copyright, trademark, patent, trade secrets, and cultural heritage. IP has been a backbone for civilization, and the advancement of technology has become a significant challenge for right-holders. Digitization has emphasized the need for global unification of IPRs. Internationalization and harmonization of IP have been identified as effective approaches to address this issue. The economic impact of IP is evident in the development and advancement of the world. The global success of multinational trademarks, such as Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft, Nike, Adidas, and Disney, is a testament to their commercial significance. However, intellectual property rights are susceptible to political and economic influences, which can impact their profitability. This issue is rooted in intellectual property law. In cases of resistance or neglect, the prosperity of intellectual property investments depends on a robust enforcement system. Intelligent entrepreneurs and finance and politics professionals can benefit from acquiring a full collection of intellectual property assets, including important information and skills, which could generate royalties across worldwide jurisdictions. A balanced approach is recommended to balance conflicting rights. |
