Michelle Mao is  an IPilogue Writer and a 2L student at Osgoode Hall Law School.

You may recall Usain Bolt’s subtle but impactful on August 23, 2022, adding a trademark emoji to his iconic quote, “To the World”. That tweet spoke to his trademark of his iconic “lightning” celebration pose, indicating Bolt’s possible plans to create merchandise using his iconic celebrity power and image. Indeed, when searching the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) database, the signature pose for many industries, including eyewear and accessories, clocks and watches, leathers, bags, clothing, footwear, games, entertainment, restaurants, etc. While Bolt’s trademark registration is for the rather than the pose, the use of poses and gestures in branding can potentially bring a new wave of “unusual” trademarks, especially as social media and technology have spread previously unthought-of but recognizable traits. One type of “unusual” mark would be celebrities’ recognizable poses or gestures.

For some time now, celebrities’ brand images have increasingly used their iconic poses or features to market their brand to promote endorsed goods and services. For example, Kim Kardashian’s body-shaped perfume gained fame several years ago for demonstrating the recognizability of Kim K’s body as her brand. In the sports world, the trend to trademark poses and gestures like Bolt’s victory pose has been demonstrated for some time, Mo Farah’s “Mobot” pose, Gareth Bale’s “elven of hearts” gesture, and Jesse Lingard’s “JLingz” gesture. Similar to Bolt’s trademark, one other notable trademarked pose as a design mark is Michael Jordan’s “” which represents Michael Jordan’s Collaboration with Nike – the Air Jordan line.

To discuss future legal considerations arising from this trend of trademarking “unusual” marks, including poses and gestures, we must first understand the purpose and limits of trademarks.

The essential purpose of trademark law is to allow one entity to distinguish its goods and services from another’s. Therefore, a when analyzing the possibility of trademark infringement is if the general public would be likely to confuse, be deceived, or mistake the source of the good or service. Trademarks do not necessarily prevent all others from utilizing the trademark in the future. A trademark protects a brand’s image by preventing others from imitating or devaluing the brand through association with a similar or identical mark. The USPTO that if you trademark a mark, it does not allow you to gain rights over the mark in all uses but only allows you to gain exclusive rights to it in its specific category of goods and services.

So, what happens when the industry you are in requires selling yourself? For example, an influencer’s job is to promote products and services through their looks, personality, aesthetics, etc. An influencer can establish their brand through iconic and recognizable traits such as poses or physical features. An influencer’s image can be used to provide an endorsement service of a product or another service (for example, a celebrity holding up a branded item to be photographed). The option to is available and is generally not an issue because likeliness is unique, but what about something more generic, like a pose, gesture, or silhouette?

The legal problem comes if the over whether an iconic or even trademarked gesture or pose is being used by a third party to refer to the originating individual or if the gesture or pose is used to signal an endorsement from the individual. For example, other athletes being pictured posing in Bolt’s victory pose may have sent a message that Bolt was endorsing them for whatever reason (luckily, in this case, it was a tweeted by Bolt in 2018 before this trademark was submitted). If displaying a pose or gesture causes consumer confusion, we enter the territory of trademark infringement.

It will be interesting to see how trademarks evolve beyond word marks and design marks alongside increased online marketing through influencer brand endorsements. While Usain Bolt’s trademark this time is only for the flat design mark of his iconic pose, there is no doubt that trademarking poses, gestures, and other iconic traits will be on the minds of celebrities moving forward.

The post Trademarking Gestures: Usain Bolt’s Trademark of Iconic Pose appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Moderna and Pfizer battle’s over the inventive process of their respective mRNA COVID-19 vaccines revisit the negative associations of profit, monopolies, and optics in patent litigation. On August 26, 2022, Moderna released a that they will pursue a patent infringement lawsuit against Pfizer/BioNTech for their use of Moderna’s registered mRNA patents in creating the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Moderna claimed that they had registered foundational mRNA patents between 2010 and 2016. , however, is that while Moderna is pursuing an infringement claim, they clarified that they will not prevent future sale of Pfizer vaccines, will not seek damages from sales of Pfizer’s vaccines in certain circumstances, will not seek a cut of Pfizer’s sales from the US government or from the 92 low and middle-income countries that had trouble accessing COVID-19 vaccines. While the specific remedy sought by Moderna is not defined in the press statement, Moderna wants a chunk of Pfizer’s profits, such as through .��

The strategic choice of Moderna’s press statement to detail remedies they will not pursue without revealing the precise  remedies they will pursue has led critics to call Moderna out for using “optics” and the quasi-sacrosanctity of intellectual property to further profits and strengthen their position in the mRNA pharmaceutical business. The balance that patent law seeks to achieve is well known, with , of the United States Constitution defining the purpose "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Moderna sought to protect themselves from the feeling of “unfairness” that arises when another appropriates your labour (in this case, Moderna’s labour of researching mRNA-based vaccines). Appealing to deeply engrained values of ownership, investment of resources and labour, and protecting themselves against misappropriation of their invested resources Moderna can protect its brand image while seeking billions of dollars from Pfizer in royalties or other types of remedies by, for example, appealing to deeply engrained values of ownership, investment of resrources and labour, and protecting themselves against misappropriation of their invested resources.��

The values at issue in this lawsuit speak to the current flaws of patent laws around the world, and the lawsuit’s impacts will be especially prominent as it relates to the COVID-19 vaccine that has saved almost in just one year. Currently, the Moderna versus Pfizer patent litigation is only being restricted to high-income countries solely on Moderna’s not to seek money from sales in low-income countries. However, reliance on this promise may be flimsy as Moderna has already its promise to not enforce patents through litigation during the pandemic to enforcement in high-income countries (as seen now). This exposes some concerns about our patent laws. For example, this lawsuit may have a chilling effect on future mRNA vaccine development. Another concern is how low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may suffer from future patent lawsuits where promises not to seek sales from LMICs are not made and in the context of . Balancing the need to encourage rapid responses to global emergencies that require new technologies and access to these technologies all while discouraging monopolies will need to be scrutinized as we head out of the COVID-19 pandemic.��

So what solutions are available to prevent slowdowns in innovation and concerns for access in LMICs? What solution could be to make amendments to a country’s patent act, such as �䲹�Բ��岹’s which included such amendments. However, the impacts to the patentee could be significant, especially in terms of profits in a national or global emergency. While the amended Patent Act ensures payment of remuneration which the Commissioner of Patents deems adequate in of the Patent Act, this provision may not be feasible in countries with weaker economic power. A statutory defense to patent enforcement could be another solution, as seen in the American approach in This section allows patent “infringement” if the manufacturers are manufacturing goods for the use of the government in difficult times. Interestingly, we are already seeing this defense being used by Moderna themselves claims made against them. While these are two approaches available, the countries implementing these adjustments to patent protections are high-income countries with economic power to guarantee patentees are adequately recompensated, leaving the issue for LMIC concerns unaddressed. Additionally, these solutions also may not adequately address the chilling effect on innovation as the statutory defense is limited and the consequences of patent litigation are expensive.

Currently, no court decisions have been rendered regarding Moderna’s patent infringement claim against Pfizer. However, given the novelty and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no doubt that whatever decision is made, it will become a new precedent for future patent infringement claims of this scale.

The post Moderna sues Pfizer for mRNA Patent Infringement: when optics and profits reveal real issues in modern IP law usage appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is a 2L student at Osgoode Hall Law School and an IPilogue Writer.

In response to a , where the musical’s contents were , Lin-Manuel Miranda, creator of the Hamilton musical tweets, So, what exactly does this “work” entail?

, The Door, a church in McAllen, Texas live-streamed their production of Hamilton with modified lyrics to reference Jesus and added a scene where Alexander Hamilton repents. The production ends with a sermon helping those who were struggling with drugs, addiction, and most controversially, homosexuality. The copyright issues that exist in this situation include: unauthorized streaming, unauthorized use of Hamilton content, unauthorized alterations to Hamilton content, and an infringement of an artist’s “moral right” to their copyrighted work.��

Lin-Manuel Miranda’s lawyers can consider several measures to protect his intellectual property. First, Hamilton the Musical did not grant performers rights to use its unique content and had only granted licensing to touring companies to perform the musical in various cities around the world. Given that The Door McAllen Church is not a touring company, they had not been previously granted rights to perform and live-stream, much less alter the contents of Hamilton the Musical.��

There is, however, an added layer of complexity for Lin-Manuel Miranda’s lawyers in this case. As religious institutions, from typical copyright protections called the . Therefore, performance or display of a copyrighted work at a religious institution is allowed, such as the performance of a hymn. This exemption, however, still does not grant churches the freedom to alter copyrighted work, such as changing the lyrics of a copyrighted song.��

An interesting argument Lin-Manuel Miranda’s lawyers can make is to claim Lin-Manuel's moral rights claim to his copyrighted work. to prevent the alteration and/or distortion of their work regardless of who the copyright owner is. The purpose of this right is to protect the reputations of authors and to prevent the destruction of unique works. The moral rights argument can be very strong in this case, given the progressive message that Hamilton the Musical stands for, with its casting of people-of-colour to portray an era dominated by colonization and white settlers. It is not hard to see how altering Hamilton the Musical, which has been hailed as an iconic piece subverting oppression, to promote certain Christian values and condemn homosexuality would severely damage Lin-Manuel Miranda’s reputation.��

This problem of copyright, fair use, and moral rights, in this case, is an interesting one, where the non-profit and fair use angles of church and religion and moral rights are evaluated within overlapping legal principles. While most present-day people would view The Door McAllen Church’s condemnation of homosexuality as oppressive, the tension between an author’s moral values and rights against fair use and religious use will prompt future discussions of racism, religious freedom, and individual freedoms.��

, the dispute between Hamilton the Musical and The Door McAllen Church has been settled by The Door McAllen Church paying an undisclosed amount of damages which the Hamilton team has since to an LGBTQ-rights organization. While it is unclear which argument Lin-Manuel's legal team took to achieve this outcome, he undoubtedly had a strong copyright claim against The Door McAllen Church’s unauthorized usage of Hamilton content.��

The post Moral Rights in Copyright: Lin-Manuel Miranda sues Texas Church for unauthorized performances of “Hamilton” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and an IPilogue Writer.

The distinct smell of brown sugar and cinnamon wafting out of your grandma’s kitchen every time you visit is unique and unmistakable to you. You claim that it is “one-of-a-kind" and it invigorates you to power through until your next visit to grandma’s house. These features of grandma’s cookies give you a bright idea – what if you patent grandma’s cookies? After all, grandma is a sweet old lady who deserves to live a lavish life in retirement and could use the extra money.��

According to the , patents must meet three criteria: (1) new – first in the world, (2) useful – functional and operative, and (3) inventive – showing ingenuity and non-obvious. To you, the cookies are unique (potentially filling the novel requirement), they serve a functional purpose – of filling you with motivation (useful), and no one has figured out how to replicate her secret recipe (non-obvious). So, what are the chances of patenting grandma’s secret recipe? 

Theoretically, it is possible for recipes to be patented if they meet the above criteria, qualifying under the as a “”. However, recipes have , often failing at the non-obvious or novel stage. Patents for recipes that fail at the non-obvious stage are typically recipes with a simple composition, making them easily decipherable. Patents for recipes that fail at the novel stage are typically those for a commonly made dish, where simple adjustments to the proportion or ingredient amounts are not patentable. The unpatentability of these factors is based on practicality, where someone cooking a cultural recipe or using more seasoning is not suddenly and unknowingly infringing on a newly claimed patent.��

Perhaps a suggestion for Grandma could be to patent her unique process of creating such life-changing cookies, whether it is the process of dough-making or cookie-baking. As technology continues to develop, the incorporation of novel techniques such as dehydration of ingredients, nitrogen cooling, and others, this new way of patenting cooking processes may develop. It will be interesting to see how new processes and techniques that change food longevity, cook times, food’s structural integrity, etc. could change the historical patent success rate of recipes. Unfortunately, for now, your grandma can only protect her secret recipes locked away in a box, rather than through patent protection.

The post Can Grandma’s Secret Recipes be Protected and Monetized? A look into the patentability of recipes appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an incoming 2L student at Osgoode Hall Law School and an IPilogue writer.

The IP principle that abstract ideas cannot be patented has often been misapplied to the development of software, often boiling down to concluding software to be unpatentable. However, which parts of software are patentable, and which parts are not? The short answer is that while lines of code are not patentable, software can be patentable if it is useful and can be susceptible to commercialization.

�䲹�Բ��岹’s and the (“MOPOP”) both  guide the (“CIPO”) in issuing patents. Applicants must meet certain requirements for a software patent to be issued. . First, several of patentability must be met, including novelty, non-obviousness, and being of a patentable subject matter. Second, additional criteria often apply to software-related inventions, including needing to have a on the real world or needing to be operated through a , such as a computer.

The above criteria are rooted deeply in the principles of IP law, specifically that abstract ideas, functions, scientific principles, or abstract theorems cannot be patented – as codified in . Those criteria protect the objective of IP law, which is to compensate inventors for innovative ideas while preventing barriers from being created as a result of patenting ideas and basic building blocks that are essential to innovation.

Given all these requirements, it is not hard to see how the misconception that software is not patentable arose – with software seeming like an intangible collection of code performing certain functions. However, with the immediate and ever-increasing utility of computer-based applications, new software patent applications very often meet the criteria of usefulness and novelty, allowing most software patents to be eligible.

Interestingly, a large tech company in 2011 almost failed to adequately define its software patent application. In , Amazon tried to patent a “one-click” shopping feature to increase the speed at which a purchase can be completed. The case was positioned uniquely in the intersection of increasing utility, which fulfills a patent requirement, and an abstract idea, a business method. Originally, the Commissioner had rejected the patent for several reasons, one of which was the unpatentability of an abstract idea. The Federal Court of Appeal, however, found that business methods may be essential to a utility and the mere characteristic of a patent application to be part of a business method does not make it ineligible for patent.

Commercializing new developments in software has been an important concern as the tech sector continues to . Courts have treated the delicate balance between business methods, the features and functions of code, novelty, and protecting innovation carefully for the past several decades.

As of now, the courts have created enough case law to provide a stable guideline for CIPO in software patent applications. It is interesting, however, that statutory provisions dealing specifically with software patents have not been integrated into the Patent Act. Only time will tell whether this allows for flexibility as the tech sector continues to develop or causes continued confusion and debate.

The post How and When can Software be Patented? How IP law principles interact with emerging tech appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an incoming 2L JD student at Osgoode Hall Law school and an IPilogue Writer.

Litigation is almost always , whether because of the sheer amount of time needed to get a court date, the expensive costs for the client and law firm, or the risks associated with receiving an unfavorable judgement. So why do entities  (NPEs) act as the exception to the rule? Furthermore, how is litigation a viable option for them to make a profit when litigation seems burdensome for most other types of entities? 

are a special type of entity that specifically purchases patents or patent rights but does not commodify the patent. There are typically academic institutions and private individuals/companies. The first kind, academic institutions, acquire patents to protect the research work of their faculty and researchers while licensing others to use the results of the research produced without commodifying the patent. The second kind, private parties, often use the patents they acquire for profit through damage or settlement awards, or royalties and licensing rights.

NPEs who acquire patents solely for profit (and not commercialization) are also called or ".” They from collecting royalties, licensing transfer patent rights, or resorting to court proceedings to enforce patent rights against infringers. They do not practice, develop, manufacture, or otherwise commercialize the patent. Furthermore, because they do not practice or develop their manufacture, they experience no risk of patent infringement litigation themselves.��

From this description alone, it seems that an NPE’s core business model infringes on the where innovation is simultaneously protected and encouraged. So why are they still allowed to operate?

Despite the obvious tension between the business models of NPEs and IP law, NPEs can exist for the following two reasons. First, it is legal to profit from acquiring patents. Second, NPEs have a functional role in the corporate world— an inventory for .��

Due to the ongoing problem of strategic patent litigation, technology companies have now begun to even at times utilizing the actions of NPEs to evaluate the strength or profitability of their patents should they choose to develop them. For example, a patent that is rejected by an NPE for purchase may implicitly tell companies that their patent is not strong or not seen to be in line with market trends. This, however, can still permanently shift and alter the values in which patents are developed. Previously, patents were developed due to a new technological innovation or to address a technological need. While profit was still a factor for developers when registering their patents, decisions around profitability were made by technology companies and experts. With the rising market influence of NPEs, the voices of technology companies and experts have diminished. Their unique market expertise and knowledge of consumer demand may be pushed aside in favour of “evaluations” by NPEs, based solely on their self-interested criteria of how profitable a patent is, based on their typical avenues of income: royalties, licensing, and litigation.��

With huge technological strides being made in the tech sector in the present day, the conflict between NPE patent trolls and developers will become increasingly contentious. Moving forward, Canadian government authorities should consider becoming involved in balancing the tensions between NPE patent trolls and technological innovation. Public institutions have a direct interest in fostering technological development and innovation for the betterment of communities and the national economy. Currently, aggressive NPEs who increase the time and difficulty of obtaining a patent solely due to profit are a direct obstacle to that interest.��

The post Litigation as a Source of Profit? Non-Practicing Entities and Patent Litigation appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and an incoming 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The fantastical and mind-blowing virtual worlds of and may soon be within reach as the for virtual reality technology heats up between major companies like , , and . Virtual reality has been dubbed by entertainment and media companies as the next big advancement in modern-day lifestyle. The appeal of virtual reality has been further developed as people have been cooped up in their homes for over two years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The desire to feel connected while in the comfort and safety of one’s home can be uniquely targeted by innovations in virtual reality.�� 

To get to that immersive ideal, companies are racing to own patents for innovative, user-friendly technologies that would entice everyday consumers to use virtual reality platforms in a hassle-free way. One notable example is Meta’s (formerly known as Facebook) ownership of a that can when worn around the torso. Apple, on the other hand, owns the patent for a , where the user can manipulate objects in virtual and mixed reality environments. Notably, both devices are less bulky than current-day VR headsets and allow for much finer control over a virtual avatar’s interaction within a virtual environment. Companies are racing to patent the most comfortable options for VR hardware.��

As a result, are being bought up by large tech companies. In the , Microsoft, and Samsung continue to top other companies in the number of new AR/VR patents assigned.�� 

What does this mean for Future Patent Issues in the Virtual Reality Context?

As the patent collections of large corporations grow and products begin to materialize, one should expect an increase in surrounding virtual reality soon.�� In the face of increased patent litigation, IP lawyers and lawmakers interacting with the AR/VR patent landscape should consider 2 potential problems.

 AR/VR developers face two different legal interests that IP lawyers must balance when advising these developers Firstly, developers and the companies they are employed at want broad protection of their patented innovation. They want their patents, when read at the “”, to sufficiently block competitors from infringing on their patentable innovation. The patent must be strong enough to sufficiently protect the level of investment and time spent on developing an innovation – which is especially important in AR/VR patent issues, where development is .

Second, developers want to be protected from patent litigation. The descriptions of their patent must also be detailed and fully described such that other competitors cannot accuse them of intellectual property theft.

IP lawyers may need to navigate the increasing practice of when working with AR/VR developers. With the thousands of patents being issued around AR/VR technology each quarter, it is not surprising that NPEs are purchasing patents to assert their patent rights against companies . Thus, IP lawyers and companies targeted by NPE litigation must learn to prepare themselves in the AR/VR patent world, where patent issuance moves at a much faster pace than ever before.

While the pace of patent issuance in AR/VR can bring a diverse set of issues that IP lawyers must navigate in an already fast-paced legal environment, the developments and innovations surrounding AR/VR technology are exciting. It will be interesting to see how the legal profession and policymakers step up to deal with these issues as AR/VR technology continues its trajectory into modern, everyday living.

The post The Race Between Tech Companies for Patent Ownership in the Development of Immersive Virtual Experiences appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Big-name celebrities like and of the indie rock band have taken to TikTok to with the new marketing approach of creating .

TikTok has an established history of amplifying dance and music trends since acquiring the nearly identical app, . Its user base and viral power during the COVID-19 pandemic. Raenelle Manning, an IPilogue writer and the author of part I  of this two-part article series on TikTok Viral Marketing explains more about TikTok as a marketing strategy.

�Ჹ�������’s details how she is unable to release music until she produces a “fake viral trend” to promote the new song. To the casual viewer, this type of restriction of her actions as an artist may seem to infringe on her rights as an artist. In fact, the top comment under her TikTok video expresses that Halsey should find a new record label that lets her release her music when she wants.

This sentiment plays into inherent feelings of property ownership and control over your property —in this case, your intellectual property (“IP”. But what are the legal underpinnings that tie Halsey's (and other artists’) ownership and control of their music?

The short answer, as usual in law, is that it depends. While artists may inherently feel like they are “held hostage” by their record labels, it all comes down to the that both the artist and record label agreed upon. found in recording agreements include rights granted, producer royalties, and promotions. For artists and creators and their intellectual property, the nature of “property/product” over which they are exerting “ownership” impacts the traditionally recognized IP rights.

In a , Nimmer describes IP law as a special existence between property law and contract law, where a product of the digital world is more closely tied to a contractual relationship on contractual terms rather than subject to property law guidelines for ownership and control.

Nimmer explains that for digital property and products because digital products almost always involve a transfer of information or data, either by transferring information upon another or into the open forum of the internet. In this case, the information to be distributed is music, and the distribution methods are governed by contract because the of the song must occur to make a profit. To distribute/release music, the terms of the contract play a great deal in defining the intellectual property rights granted and restricted around the piece of music in question.

For Halsey, when responding to why she cannot release her music, despite it being “her song,” she tweets: .” This likely means that to commercialize her music and distribute it publicly, the contract between her and her record label granted IP rights like control over the r, rather than Halsey. In exchange, Halsey would gain access to distributing her music publicly, without being limited to the open-source forum route, which often removes any IP right from the creator.

Another way to think about the IP rights granted/restricted in the case of music ownership is through the (sometimes criticized) theory of IP rights as a . In exchange for a product or service, IP rights may be given or traded away to the benefit of both parties. In his article, Professor David Vaver of IP Osgoode the example of , where patent rights are granted to inventors when they invent something that could benefit the public good. The bargain is for the exchange of exclusive IP rights to the inventor, and the government that grants the patent receives a product that would benefit their citizens.

Applying this framework, one could argue that Halsey bargained away her IP rights as a singer of the song to the record label in exchange for the that the record label offers. This would include specialized marketing, business expertise, and other commercial connections that a record company may have.

Considering artists speaking up against their record labels and attempting to establish ownership over their creative works, should these frameworks of commercialization and bargaining continue to define intellectual property in the music industry? There is good reason to revisit the framework of IP law commercially as digital products/creations/property become increasingly profitable and creators become more empowered to speak out for their creative freedom.

This article has a sister article on how TikTok marketing influences branding and artistic expression of artists in the music industry.

The post Viral TikTok Music Trends as Low-Cost Marketing – Who gets to choose how and when a song is released? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and an incoming 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Imagine you are a new artist, who sells your art for $500 dollars, which is enough to cover the cost of supplies and your time spent on the piece. Then you find out ten years later that your original piece was resold for over $50,000 dollars while you are destitute. This situation is why artists around the world advocate for .

An Artist Resale Right (ARR) allows the artist or the artist’s estate to profit or financially benefit from the sale of the artist’s work in secondary markets after the original sale. Artists and advocates consider this right as a part of the wage artists should receive for their profession and livelihood. As of May 2022, Canada does not have a policy towards ARR in place.

Supporters have several arguments in favour of implementing ARR in Canada. First, artists as a group are more vulnerable to financial instability or more likely to take on additional jobs to achieve financial stability. ARR can provide a that can help artists improve their financial stability. Second, other artistic professionals, such as and writers, already have systems in place to continuously profit from the downstream payments made in relation to their original work.

Those opposing resale rights raise concerns regarding the possible on art sellers, and art resellers may not feel properly compensated for the risk they incur when collecting pieces for galleries and resale. regarding compliance with proper payment and the lack of global ARR standardization can complicate many logistics.

While the law of ARR is no longer a novel idea in the legal world, the importance of protections for an artist’s fair share of profits is ever-increasing as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) become mainstream. Currently, the specific wording creates for NFT transactions to forego payment to the original artist. This is because NFTs are a “one-time copy” of original art, and thus resale of the NFT does not activate ARR entitlements, which only apply to the original work.

Overall, profits made from the sale (and resale) of art must be balanced between artists, art professionals, art curators, auction houses, etc. sWith the value of artworks having the potential to increase so exponentially over time, it may be proportional for artists to make a percentage of resale revenue. The secondary income would acknowledge the artist’s mastery and skill, while properly compensating them for the value of the art that they created. Now, as NFTs become increasingly tied to , future artist compensation is increasingly important. Future ARR advocacy should consider how ARR can and should be adapted to not only address logistical complexities but also NFT loopholes.

The post Should Artists Make Money Off Future Sales of their Work? An Argument For and Against appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and an incoming 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Soon, manufacturers will be able to use NIH-licenced technologies to develop COVID-19 technologies for sale and distribution to low and middle-income countries. This is because the has finalized its its NIH-owned COVID-19 technology patents to the and the ’s (WHO) ). There will be a total of shared, including technologies supporting vaccine development, drug and diagnostic development, and prospective vaccine candidates. These technologies will be brought under a global and non-exclusive licence. Additionally, under the agreement, the NIH for products licensed in the United Nations’ .

While it may feel like the pandemic is ending in higher socioeconomic countries like the United States and Canada, vaccination levels in low-income countries are still , at around 15.9% first-dose vaccination rate. This continues the trend of COVID-19 pandemic leaving low-income countries in the face of expensive, patented COVID-19 vaccines and drugs. Allowing manufacturers to access previously patented technologies to develop their own products can dramatically decrease the cost of accessing COVID-19 technologies. A wider pool of manufacturers creating their own products to supply to lower and middle-income countries means they must compete with other manufacturers to keep the cost of products low.

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists across the globe raced to develop life-saving medicines that could end the global crisis. Those efforts are by intellectual property laws, allowing scientists to securely make scientific advances without the worry of another competing lab “stealing” their discoveries. Now, due to a combination of a well-developed COVID-19 scientific field and the global obligations of the United States, the NIH feels ready to agree to a global non-exclusive licence for several of its patented COVID-19 technologies.

This agreement finally comes after from scholars in public health, intellectual property, and scientists about potential global inequalities that could arise in vaccine and drug development in a global pandemic. Due to the lack of economic resources for lower-income and middle-income countries for vaccine doses and a to manufacture their own COVID-19 medicines, it was predicted that lower-income countries would be hardest hit. Additionally, from the beginning of the pandemic, health-advocacy organizations have for pharmaceutical companies to share their patent knowledge so that lower-income countries can produce their own generic versions of COVID-19 drugs.

While the sharing of NIH-licensed COVID-19 technologies comes as good news for lower and middle-income countries still grappling with the pandemic, this licensing agreement may have come too little, too late. The pandemic has already swept through a majority of nations where many lives may have been saved if there was quicker and wider access to the life-saving COVID-19 vaccines that the higher income countries had first access to.

In future global crises, the problem of balancing intellectual property protections with global cooperation and socioeconomic inequality will continue. Hopefully, the COVID-19 pandemic can shed some light on how future policy considerations can be made to protect scientific innovation while minimising the sacrifice.

The post More Accessible COVID-19 Technology on the Horizon: The National Institute of Health Licenses its COVID-19 Tech Patents to the WHO and the Medicines Patent Pool appeared first on IPOsgoode.