ASSIGNMENT 1 – WORD PROCESSING SOFTWARE
PREPARED BY:
PI007K18
NUR FAIQAH BINTI ZA AZLIM
2019407902
PREPARED FOR:
MOHD KHAIRI BINKAMARUDDIN
ASSIGNMENT SUBMITTED IN FULLFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR FUNDAMENTALS
OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER OF FOUNDATIONS
STUDIES IN LAW
30 AUGUST 2019
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
LIST OF FIGURES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
1.1 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
1.2 Monkey Selfie Copyright Dispute--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2. CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
2.1 Brief Definition----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The number of cases handled by the WIPO Center is consistently growing, showing rising demand for such
specialized services------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
Figure 2: The WIPO Rules provide specific sets of provisions on taking evidence via expert witnesses, including
arranging for experiments to be conducted during arbitration.-----------------------------------------------------------------------8
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
1. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
These intellectual attempts are creating new technologies, describing new methods of doing stuff,developing
new products and services and expanding society's cultural wealth. They result in intellectual assets or pieces
of information which, if used on the market, may have economic value. Such assets are caleded to the extent
that they bear acknowledged ownership of intellectual property. The financial return to their development
depends on their creation expenses, their desirability for prospective customers, the structure of the markets
in which they are sold, and the legal freedoms developed to allow owners to regulate their use. Legal
instruments providing such control are referred to as intellectual property rights.
In general, it is possible to discern from history three different philosophies about the nature of
intellectual property and its security. First, the perspective of natural rights, derived from certain European
traditions, assigns to their inventors and artists ownership of mental creations under the precept that failure
to do so constitutes theft of the fruits of their effort and inspiration. In addition, creators should be granted
the right to regulate any reworking of their thoughts and phrases. The moral point of perspective of IPRs is
mainly independent of any consideration of the incentive or financial expenses and advantages of regulation.
This strategy still bears witness to the powerful protection of the moral freedoms of performers in European
law today.
By comparison, it is inappropriate to assign personal property rights to intellectual creations under
what might be called the view of public freedoms. Instead, data belongs to the public domain as free access
to data is essential to social cohesion and learning. This strategy discovered its greatest implementation in
socialist systems that did not acknowledge the concept of personal intellectual property. The undertaking of
creating information tumbled to the state and the products of its innovation were given broadly to potential
clients, in any event on a fundamental level. This statute still underlies numerous originations of the idea of
data in a few creating nations.
There is much room between these outrageous positions for recognzing that IPRs might be allocated
and directed for reasons for social and monetary approach. Most lawful frameworks receive an utilitarian
view, where IPRs are designe to strike balance between requirements for innovation and creation, from one
viewpoint, and requirements for dispersion and access, on the other. Private property rights in data bear the
two advantages and costs, suggsting that they might be planned in view of motivations and tradeoffs.
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
1.2 Monkey Selfie Copyright Dispute
On July 2011, British photographic artist David Slater went to a national park in North Sulawesi, Indonesia,
to take photos of the nearby untamed life. Once there he pursued a troop of monkeys, attempting to get a
couple of interesting pictures. Mr. Slater guarantees that he was explicitly searching for an extremely close
shot of a monkey's face utilizing a wide-edge focal point, however the monkeys were clearly timid, and
didn't enable him to get excessively close. While he figured out how to take a couple of pictures, he didn't
get the shot he was searching for. He guarantees he put his camera on a tripod as the monkeys were
interested about the hardware, and clicked a couple of shots. The primary pictures they took were of low
quality. He asserts he at that point changed the camera settings and that one monkey specifically, was
attracted to the impression of the focal point. The monkey at that point proceeded to take a couple of
pictures.
In any case, the fame of the photographs, included some significant downfalls. In 2014, it set off a
contest between Mr. Slater and Wikipedia when the online reference book transferred the image and labeled
it as being in the open space, thinking that monkeys can't possess copyright. Whenever Mr. Slater attempted
to get the image expelled, Wikipedia did not yield, and the purported monkey selfie is as yet recorded on that
site as open space material. At that point, in September 2015, the crusade gathering People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued Mr. Slater in a California court for the benefit of the monkey (named
Naruto in the suit) to attest copyright over the image, asserting that the selfie "came about because of a
progression of deliberate and intentional activities by Naruto, independent by Mr. Slater, bringing about
unique works of creation not by Mr. Slater, yet by Naruto."
In January 2016, the preliminary judge rejected the activity on the premise that regardless of whether
Naruto had taken the photos by "free, self-sufficient activity," the suit couldn't proceed as creatures don't
have remaining in an official courtroom and subsequently can't sue for copyright encroachment.
Astoundingly, PETA bid the rejection, in the Court of Appeals of the ninth Circuit, and those following the
case were blessed to receive the scene of US Federal Court judges and legal advisors making monkey jokes
and examining whether PETA had distinguished the correct monkey.
To some degree disappointingly, in any case, the show was stopped as the gatherings arrived at a
settlement out of court. While the careful terms of the settlement are obscure, attorneys for PETA have said
that the arrangement incorporates a dedication from the picture taker to pay 25 percent of all future eminence
income to the monkey haven where Naruto lives. This would appear to be the part of the arrangement selfie
case, however in an ongoing meeting Mr. Slater indicated that he is considering suing Wikipedia for
copyright encroachment.
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
The Naruto case occurred in a California court since Mr. Slater has distributed a book called Wildlife
Personalities utilizing the independently publishing administration Blurb, a Delaware organization that ships
its literature from a San Francisco stockroom. The offended parties (PETA) asserted this was sufficient to
concede them remaining in the United States. Be that as it may, as Mr. Slater is a British resident, any future
prosecution could happen in the United Kingdom. The way that the image was shared online has been a
significant factor from the beginning of the case, eclipsing even the physical components of the story, for
example, Mr. Slater's nationality. Jurisdictional issues in connection to the Internet are one of the most mind
boggling regions of digital law in light of the system's worldwide nature.
Fortunately, jurisdictional inquiries in connection to copyright will in general be somewhat
progressively direct. Copyright law is carefully national in nature, yet there is a global framework set up that
enables makers to ensure their works in different locales. As a general guideline, Article 5(1) of the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works expresses that copyright in a work subsists any
place it begins, that is, in the nation where it was first distributed. In the monkey selfie case, the image was
taken in Indonesia, and first distributed in the UK through Caters News Agency, an image and video
authorizing firm, which at that point conceded consent for its production in the British media.
To the extent that the work can be said to have begun in the UK, and since Mr. Slater has over and
over guaranteed exercise of his privileges in the UK (according to Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention), it
would be more than reasonable for expect that UK copyright law would apply in this case. Regardless of
whether we disregard the spot of distribution, courts appear to be quick to practice ward over their nationals.
Courts in the UK have even heard cases from different locales, similar to the case broadly in Pearce v. Ove
Arup. Besides, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been deciding in favor of the maker
with regards to jurisdictional issues, and specifically when managing on the web encroachment cases, for
example, in Pinckney v. Mediatech and Hejduk v. EnergieAgentur. In light of the over, an investigation of
copyright initiation issues under English and EU copyright law is all together.
As a British resident, it is reasonable for expect that Mr. Slater would sue Wikipedia in the UK.
Observers in the United States appear to concur that the photograph abhors copyright security under US law.
While, the inquiry stays open to discuss, should Mr. Slater sue in a UK court, no doubt, given existing case
law and the situation of driving experts on copyright in connection to photos, that he has an exceptionally
solid case in asserting that copyright subsists in the picture and his responsibility for photograph. Take, for
instance, Painer v. Standard Verlags GmbH (C 145/10), an EU case including Austrian picture taker Eva-
Maria Painer and a few German-language papers. Ms. Painer, an expert picture taker, had taken a
representation of young person Natascha Kampusch, who therefore ended up acclaimed for having been
captured and held for a long time in a storm cellar. She later got away from her captor. At the hour of her
abducting, the main accessible picture of Ms. Kampusch was the photo taken by Ms. Painer. A few papers
utilized an adapted advanced rendition of the picture to outline their accounts of Ms. Kampusch's departure.
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
In 2007, Ms. Painer sued for copyright encroachment for such unapproved use. The respondents
affirmed, in addition to other things, that the picture did not have copyright as it was just a portrayal of Ms.
Kampusch and was not adequately unique. The inquiry was alluded to the CJEU, which based on the
common law and case law pronounced that photos are unique in the event that they are the creator's own
scholarly creation and mirror their character. In this occurrence, be that as it may, the Court of Justice went
further. It expressed that the picture taker's "free and imaginative decisions" in choosing a foundation and
posture, altering lighting and utilizing distinctive creating methods to deliver a photograph give an
"individual touch" that presents inventiveness and makes a photograph deserving of insurance as a scholarly
creation which passes on the picture taker's character.
This case is legitimately applicable to the monkey selfie case. While Painer manages representation
pictures, the court unmistakably records the different activities that warrant creativity, including the decision
of edge, focal points and even systems for building up the photo. It is likewise critical to take note of that no
place in its definition – nor, so far as that is concerned, in any EU case law or enactment – does the law
necessitate that the catch be squeezed by the picture taker. The demonstrations going before and following
the taking of the photo appear to be increasingly significant in building up whether it is the creator's own
scholarly creation.
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
Figure 1: The number of cases handled by the WIPO Center is consistently growing, showing rising demand for such
specialized services
Figure 2: The WIPO Rules provide specific sets of provisions on taking evidence via expert witnesses, including
arranging for experiments to be conducted during arbitration.
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
2. CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT
2.1 Brief Definition
Copyright is a type of licensed innovation assurance given by the laws of the United States. Copyright
assurance is accessible for unique works of creation that are fixed in a substantial structure, regardless of
whether distributed or unpublished. The classes of works that can be ensured by copyright laws incorporate
artistic creations, scholarly works, live exhibitions, photos, motion pictures, and programming. The word
reference characterizes copyright as "an individual's restrictive ideal to imitate, distribute, or sell their unique
work of initiation (as a scholarly, melodic, emotional, imaginative, or engineering work)."
Understand that copyright law covers the "type of material articulation," not the real ideas, thoughts,
strategies, or certainties in a specific work. This is the purpose for why a work must be fixed in an
unmistakable structure so as to get copyright assurance. Two or three instances of works being fixed in a
substantial structure incorporate stories composed on paper and unique artistic creations on canvas. On a
very basic level, copyright is a law that gives you responsibility for things you make. Be it a work of art, a
photo, a sonnet or a novel, on the off chance that you made it, you claim it and it's simply the copyright law
that guarantees that proprietorship. The proprietorship that copyright law awards accompanies a few rights
that you, as the proprietor, have solely. Those rights include: The privilege to duplicate the work, to get
ready subordinate works, to circulate duplicates, to play out the work, what's more, to show the work freely.
Conversely, in case you're searching for material to utilize or reuse, you ought not do any of these
things without either asking consent or affirming that the work is in the open area, which implies that the
copyright has lapsed and the majority of the above rights have been relinquished. Basically, if the work isn't
in the open area and you don't have authorization to utilize a piece, you put yourself in danger of lawful
activity, paying little mind to your expectations.
Since, past reasonable use and satire (issues for later articles), the holder of a copyrighted piece has
close unlimited power to do what they need with their work. It's the same than owning a vehicle, a house or a
pen. One can loan it out to a companion, sell it, adjust it or even annihilate it. So, in the event that you claim
the copyright to something, you have similar rights that you do with whatever else and, in certain occasions,
much more. All things considered, you created it. It just bodes well that you would claim the your rewards
for all the hard work. That is the thing that copyright law is about.
Copyright law just covers the specific structure or way wherein data or thoughts have been showed,
known as the "type of material articulation." The law does not cover the real thoughts, ideas, actualities, or
methods contained in the copyright work. For instance, the Superman comic books are copyrighted, which
implies that they can't be duplicated and circulated available to be purchased without approval from the
copyright proprietor. The copyright additionally denies any other individual from making comparative works
including the Superman character present in the comic books. Be that as it may, the copyright does not
restrict anybody from making a work about a super-human character as a rule.
Remember that things not secured by copyright law might be secured under different types of
licensed innovation. For example: thoughts, methodology, techniques, frameworks, and procedures are not
secured by copyrights, yet they can be ensured under patent law. Essentially, titles, names, mottos, and
images can't be copyrighted, yet can be trademarked.
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
In circumstances where it is basic to secure a creator's privileges, numerous nations give copyright
enrollment, which enables creators to enlist copyrighted substance with a focal organization. This makes it
simpler to demonstrate responsibility for on the off chance that it is ever contested.
Copyright gives a supportive methods for ensuring unique substance. It serves to give individuals
kudos for the work they do, which is something we would all be able to appreciate. Along these lines, on the
off chance that you ever consider replicating another person's substance, consider how it would affect you in
the event that somebody duplicated your unique work and distributed it as their own. On the off chance that
you ever might want to utilize someone else's substance, make a point to approach the creator for consent
first. Furthermore, consistently acknowledge a job well done.
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages
The benefits of copyright protection outweigh the disadvantages to an overwhelming extent. Nevertheless,
there are several drawbacks to bear in mind.
Copyright protection prevents the reproduction, display or performance of protected job by persons
other than the proprietor. Protection of copyright may thus discourage the dissemination of your job as
widely or as rapidly as you may wish. For an author seeking public attention rather than economic gain, this
is mainly a disadvantage. For instance, in order to create interest, an unidentified musician may want to get
her music out to the public. However, owing to fear of copyright infringement, individuals may be unwilling
to spread their music through the Internet and other media.
Copyright provides security that is restricted. Copyright, for instance, prevents a specific expression
of an idea (such as pictures, words or sounds), but it does not safeguard the idea or concept itself. Therefore,
if you draw a image of a fresh sort of shower head, it will be forbidden for others to copy the sketch, but they
can still use the fundamental assumption to construct a real shower head. A disadvantage of copyright
protection is, therefore, that because individuals suppose that copyright protects more than it does, they may
neglect other types of relevant protection: patent protection in this instance.
Protection of copyright does not last indefinitely. Duration relies on multiple variables. Protection for
a job produced on or after 1 January 1978 generally lasts 70 years after the author's death. It is more
complicated to determine the duration of protection for a work created before 1 January 1978 and depends
on a host of factors including whether the work has been published and whether the author or his family has
applied for an extension. This poses issues for individuals trying to use a specific job legally because they
have to do some studies or contact the U.S. Copyright Office to determine if the work has entered the public
domain or is in danger of infringing copyright.
You must register your job with the U.S. to take a copyright infringement suit to court. Office of
copyright. In addition, if you wish to seek statutory damages and charges for lawyers, registration must be
finished within three months of the publishing of the job or before an breach of the job. Registration takes
time, unfortunately, and involves a fee for filing.
Copyright registration has many benefits which are the copyright provides the owner the sole right to
produce / reproduce a piece of their original work, it demonstrates the public record of the property after
registering the copyright, thereby preventing third parties from infringing your original work, it operates in
court as a prima facie proof, a registration of copyright allows economic advantages by licensing / leasing
the original work, if your copyright work is infringed, the copyright registration gives the owner legal
authority, which gives the owner an upper hand in the court case, and the owner will have exclusive rights to
distribute the piece of the work freely, perform the work in public, broadcast or sell the original work if he
has a copyright registration.
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
3. CHAPTER 3 – CONCLUSION
Intellectual Property, UiTM Dengkil, 2019
REFERENCES
