The ethics, aesthetics and practical politics of ownership in co-creative media

What is ‘best practice’ when it comes to managing intellectual property rights in participatory media content? As commercial media and entertainment business models have increasingly come to rely upon the networked productivity of end-users (Banks and Humphreys 2008) this question has been framed as a problem of creative labour made all the more precarious by changing employment patterns and work cultures of knowledge-intensive societies and globalising economies (Banks, Gill and Taylor 2014). This paper considers how the problems of ownership are addressed in non-commercial, community-based arts and media contexts. Problems of labour are also manifest in these contexts (for example, reliance on volunteer labour and uncertain economic reward for creative excellence). Nonetheless, managing intellectual property rights in collaborative creative works that are created in community media and arts contexts is no less challenging or complex than in commercial contexts. This paper takes as its focus a particular participatory media practice known as ‘digital storytelling’. The digital storytelling method, formalised by the Centre for Digital Storytelling (CDS) from the mid-1990s, has been internationally adopted and adapted for use in an open-ended variety of community arts, education, health and allied services settings (Hartley and McWilliam 2009; Lambert 2013; Lundby 2008; Thumin 2012). It provides a useful point of departure for thinking about a range of collaborative media production practices that seek to address participation ‘gaps’ (Jenkins 2006). However the outputs of these activities, including digital stories, cannot be fully understood or accurately described as user-generated content. For this reason, digital storytelling is taken here to belong to a category of participatory media activity that has been described as ‘co-creative’ media (Spurgeon 2013) in order to improve understanding of the conditions of mediated and mediatized participation (Couldry 2008). This paper reports on a survey of the actual copyrighting practices of cultural institutions and community-based media arts practitioners that work with digital storytelling and similar participatory content creation methods. This survey finds that although there is a preference for Creative Commons licensing a great variety of approaches are taken to managing intellectual property rights in co-creative media. These range from the use of Creative Commons licences (for example, Lambert 2013, p.193) to retention of full copyrights by storytellers, to retention of certain rights by facilitating organisations (for example, broadcast rights by community radio stations and public service broadcasters), and a range of other shared rights arrangements between professional creative practitioners, the individual storytellers and communities with which they collaborate, media outlets, exhibitors and funders. This paper also considers how aesthetic and ethical considerations shape responses to questions of intellectual property rights in community media arts contexts. For example, embedded in the CDS digital storytelling method is ‘a critique of power and the numerous ways that rank is unconsciously expressed in engagements between classes, races and gender’ (Lambert 117). The CDS method privileges the interests of the storyteller and, through a transformative workshop process, aims to generate original individual stories that, in turn, reflect self-awareness of ‘how much the way we live is scripted by history, by social and cultural norms, by our own unique journey through a contradictory, and at times hostile, world’ (Lambert 118). Such a critical approach is characteristic of co-creative media practices. It extends to a heightened awareness of the risks of ‘story theft’ and the challenges of ownership and informs ideas of ‘best practice’ amongst creative practitioners, teaching artists and community media producers, along with commitments to achieving equitable solutions for all participants in co-creative media practice (for example, Lyons-Reid and Kuddell nd.). Yet, there is surprisingly little written about the challenges of managing intellectual property produced in co-creative media activities. A dialogic sense of ownership in stories has been identified as an indicator of successful digital storytelling practice (Hayes and Matusov 2005) and is helpful to grounding the more abstract claims of empowerment for social participation that are associated with co-creative methods. Contrary to the ‘change from below’ philosophy that underpins much thinking about co-creative media, however, discussions of intellectual property usually focus on how methods such as digital storytelling contribute to the formation of copyright law-compliant subjects, particularly when used in educational settings (for example, Ohler nd.). This also exposes the reliance of co-creative methods on the creative assets storytellers (rather than on the copyrighted materials of the media cultures of storytellers) as a pragmatic response to the constraints that intellectual property right laws impose on the entire category of participatory media. At the level of practical politics, it also becomes apparent that co-creative media practitioners and storytellers located in copyright jurisdictions governed by ‘fair use’ principles have much greater creative flexibility than those located in jurisdictions governed by ‘fair dealing’ principles.

Repeatability or reproducibility in Australian Patent Law

This article considers the extent to which a claimed process must be repeatable or reproducible in order to be patentable according to Australian patent law. It asks whether a process must yield identical or near-identical results each time the process is invoked, or if not, what degree of repeatability is required. The question is relevant when considering, among other things, the patentability of some methods of medical treatment and diagnosis, biotechnology inventions and business methods.

Barriers to entering affordable home ownership for young people: A preliminary study from university students’ perspectives

Over the last two decades, housing affordability has been a problem for young people, and identified as factor leading to youth homelessness. The National Youth Commission Inquiry into Youth Homelessness developed a roadmap for preventing this problem (National Youth Commission, 2008). The roadmap recommends increasing the supply of affordable housing for young people as an important strategy to reduce the risk of homelessness problems. In addition, understanding the barriers and the needs of young people is a significant part of the development of a national affordable housing strategy. This paper explores issues encountered by young people when they enter the housing market as first home buyers. A short survey was conducted to review the barriers to entry, classified by income levels, housing cost and availability of affordable housing. In the current competitive job market, young people have minimal work experience, relatively low job security and low income. In addition to these barriers, participants also suggested other barriers towards the purchase of their first home, such as lack of knowledge of legal issues and lack of government funding. This study suggests the need for both government and educational support for young people around housing choices and the development of financial strategies to manage barriers towards owning their first home.

Cosmo, Cosmolino: Patent law and nanotechnology

Patent law has a significant instrumental and symbolic role in regulating nanotechnology. A 2011 report of the United States Federal Trade Commission noted that ‘the patent system plays a critical role in promoting innovation across industries from biotechnology to nanotechnology, and by entities from large corporations to independent inventors’. This chapter considers the much contested legal, ethical and social issues involved with regulating the patenting of nanotechnology. Section I considers the efforts of patent offices to classify nanotechnology and the empirical evidence about patent filing rates. Section II examines whether there is a ‘tragedy of the anticommons’ emerging in respect of nanotechnology. It contemplates access mechanisms – such as the defence of experimental use, patent pools, open innovation models and technology transfer. Section III explores ethical and social concerns associated with nanotechnology – in particular, issues about the impact upon human health and the environment.

Climate-ready crops: Intellectual property, agriculture, and climate change

In The Climate Change Review, Ross Garnaut emphasised that ‘Climate change and climate change mitigation will bring about major structural change in the agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors’. He provides this overview of the effects of climate change on food demand and supply: ‘Domestic food production in many developing countries will be at immediate risk of reductions in agricultural productivity due to crop failure, livestock loss, severe weather events and new patterns of pests and diseases.’ He observes that ‘Changes to local climate and water availability will be key determinants of where agricultural production occurs and what is produced.’ Gert Würtenberger has commented that modern plant breeding is particularly concerned with addressing larger issues about nutrition, food security and climate change: ‘Modern plant breeding has an increasing importance with regard to the continuously growing demand for plants for nutritional and feeding purposes as well as with regard to renewal energy sources and the challenges caused by climate changes.’ Moreover, he notes that there is a wide array of scientific and technological means of breeding new plant varieties: ‘Apart from classical breeding, technologies have an important role in the development of plants that satisfy the various requirements that industrial and agricultural challenges expect to be fulfilled.’ He comments: ‘Plant variety rights, as well as patents which protect such results, are of increasingly high importance to the breeders and enterprises involved in plant development programmes.’ There has been larger interest in the intersections between sustainable agriculture, environmental protection and food security. The debate over agricultural intellectual property is a polarised one, particularly between plant breeders, agricultural biotechnology companies and a range of environmentalist groups. Susan Sell comments that there are complex intellectual property battles surrounding agriculture: 'Seeds are at the centre of a complex political dynamic between stakeholders. Access to seeds concerns the balance between private rights and public obligations, private ownership and the public domain, and commercial versus humanitarian objectives.' Part I of this chapter considers debates in respect of plant breeders’ rights, food security and climate change in relation to the UPOV Convention 1991. Part II explores efforts by agricultural biotechnology companies to patent climate-ready crops. Part III considers the report of the Special Rapporteur for Food, Olivier De Schutter. It looks at a variety of options to encourage access to plant varieties with climate adaptive or mitigating properties.

Patent-busting: The public patent foundation, gene patents and the Seed Wars

This chapter considers the Public Patent Foundation as a novel institution in the patent framework. It contends that such a model can play a productive role in challenging the validity of high-profile patents; working as an amicus curiae in significant court cases; and also promoting patent law reform. However, there are limits to the ‘patent-busting’ of the Foundation. The not-for-profit legal services organization has only had the time and resources to challenge a number of noteworthy patents. Other jurisdictions – such as Australia – lack such public-spirited "patent-busting" entities. This chapter considers a number of key disputes involving the Public Patent Foundation. Part I examines the role of the Public Patent Foundation in the landmark dispute over Myriad Genetics’ patents in respect of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Part II considers the role of the Public Patent Foundation in litigation between organic farmers and Monsanto. Part III examines the role of the Public Patent Foundation in larger debates about patent law reform in the United States – particularly looking at the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 2011 (US). The conclusion contends that the patent-busting model of the Public Patent Foundation should be emulated in respect of other technological fields, and other jurisdictions – such as Australia. The initiative could also be productively applied to other forms of intellectual property – such as trade mark law, designs law, plant breeders’ rights, plant breeders’ rights, and access to genetic resources.

The legacy of David Unaipon

The historical case of David Unaipon is a good starting point for a wider discussion of Indigenous intellectual property law, practice and reform. His story is a microcosm of larger battles over the cultural appropriation of Indigenous culture, iconography and science. David Unaipon could be seen as a beneficiary of intellectual property law. He is a creator of copyright works; an inventor of patented inventions; and an iconic figure, worthy of personality rights. His creative and scientific work has been an inspiration for others. David Unaipon could also be seen as being disenfranchised by intellectual property law. He lost ownership of his economic rights in respect of literary works; and his moral rights have not been respected under copyright law. His case also highlights the deficiencies of copyright law in respect of its failure to provide comprehensive recognition of communal authorship and ownership of copyright works. While he was a patent applicant, David Unaipon never seemed to have benefitted from the patent system. His experience raises questions about access to justice. The government and commercial use of the persona of David Unaipon raises complex questions about trade mark law, passing off and personality rights. The story of David Unaipon highlights the need for the systematic and holistic reformation of intellectual property law, so that it better serves Indigenous communities and peoples.

A crowning glory: Patent law and public health

Australian patent law reforms are critical to ensuring Australians have access to vital health-care services and technologies and that people in developing countries have access to affordable, life-saving medicines...

The high price of drug patents: Australia, patent law, pharmaceutical drugs and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

This week, the secrecy surrounding an independent Australian report on patent law and pharmaceutical drugs has been lifted, and the work has been published to great acclaim...

Geopiracy: Patent law, climate change, and geoengineering

Patent law is a regime of intellectual property, which provides exclusive rights regarding scientific inventions, which are novel, inventive, and useful. There has been much debate over the limits of patentable subject matter relating to emerging technologies. The Supreme Court of the US has sought to rein in the expansive interpretation of patentability by lower courts in a series of cases dealing with medical information (Prometheus), finance (Bilski), and gene patents (Myriad). This has led to a reinvigoration of the debate over the boundaries of patentable subject matter. There has been controversy about the rise in patenting of geoengineering - particularly by firms such as Intellectual Ventures.

23andMe Inc.: Patent law and lifestyle genetics

The venture, 23andMe Inc., raises a host of issues in respect of patent law, policy, and practice in respect of lifestyle genetics and personalised medicine. The company observes: ‘We recognize that the availability of personal genetic information raises important issues at the nexus of ethics, law, and public policy’. 23andMe Inc. has tested the boundaries of patent law, with its patent applications, which cut across information technology, medicine, and biotechnology. The company’s research raises fundamental issues about patentability, especially in light of the litigation in Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. and Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics Inc. There has been much debate and controversy over 23andMe Inc. filing patent applications – particularly in respect of its granted patent on ‘Polymorphisms associated with Parkinson’s Disease’. The direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing by 23andMe Inc. has also raised important questions of bioethics and human rights. It is queried whether the terms of service for 23andMe Inc. provide adequate recognition of the concepts of informed consent and benefit-sharing, especially in light of litigation in this area in the United States. Given the patent thickets surrounding genetic testing, the case study of 23andMe Inc. also highlights questions about patent infringement and patent exceptions. The future reform of patent law, policy, and practice needs to take into account new developments in lifestyle genetics and personalised medicine – as exemplified by 23andMe Inc.

After the gold rush: Patent law and biological inventions

In response to scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology, the development of new technologies, and the demands of a hungry capitalist marketplace, patent law has expanded to accommodate a range of biological inventions. There has been much academic and public debate as to whether gene patents have a positive impact upon research and development, health-care, and the protection of the environment. In a satire of prevailing patenting practices, the English poet and part-time casino waitress, Donna MacLean, sought a patent application - GB0000180.0 - in respect of herself. She explained that she had satisfied the usual patent criteria - in that she was novel, inventive, and useful: It has taken 30 years of hard labor for me to discover and invent myself, and now I wish to protect my invention from unauthorized exploitation, genetic or otherwise. I am new: I have led a private existence and I have not made the invention of myself public. I am not obvious (2000: 18). MacLean said she had many industrial applications. ’For example, my genes can be used in medical research to extremely profitable ends - I therefore wish to have sole control of my own genetic material' (2000: 18). She observed in an interview: ’There's a kind of unpleasant, grasping, greedy atmosphere at the moment around the mapping of the human genome ... I wanted to see if a human being could protect their own genes in law' (Meek, 2000). This special issue of Law in Context charts a new era in the long-standing debate over biological inventions. In the wake of the expansion of patentable subject matter, there has been great strain placed upon patent criteria - such as ’novelty', ’inventive step', and ’utility'. Furthermore, there has been a new focus upon legal doctrines which facilitate access to patented inventions - like the defence of experimental use, the ’Bolar' exception, patent pooling, and compulsory licensing. There has been a concerted effort to renew patent law with an infusion of ethical principles dealing with informed consent and benefit sharing. There has also been a backlash against the commercialisation of biological inventions, and a call by some activists for the abolition of patents on genetic inventions. This collection considers a wide range of biological inventions - ranging from micro-organisms, plants and flowers and transgenic animals to genes, express sequence tags, and research tools, as well as genetic diagnostic tests and pharmaceutical drugs. It is thus an important corrective to much policy work, which has been limited in its purview to merely gene patents and biomedical research. This collection compares and contrasts the various approaches of a number of jurisdictions to the legal problems in respect of biological inventions. In particular, it looks at the complexities of the 1998 European Union Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, as well as decisions of member states, such as the Netherlands, and peripheral states, like Iceland. The edition considers US jurisprudence on patent law and policy, as well as recent developments in Canada. It also focuses upon recent developments in Australia - especially in the wake of parallel policy inquiries into gene patents and access to genetic resources.

A proposal for a clean technology directive: European patent law and climate change

This article charts the conflicted, dissonant policies of the European Union towards intellectual property and climate change. It contends that there is a mismatch between the empirical work of the European Patent Office and the quietist policy options contemplated by the European Union. This article contends that the European Union needs to develop a Clean Technology Directive to allow for a differentiated approach to patent law and clean technologies - especially given the past complicity of the European Union in global warming and climate change. It highlights essential elements in a comprehensive policy package for the reform of patent law - considering patentable subject matter; patent incentives; and patent exceptions.

Franklin Barley: Patent law and plant breeders’ rights

This paper considers the relationship between patent law and plant breeders' rights in light of modern developments in biotechnology. It examines how a number of superior courts have sought to manage the tensions and conflicts between these competing schemes of intellectual property protection. Part 1 considers the High Court of Australia case of Grain Pool of Western Australia v the Commonwealth dealing with Franklin barley. Part 2 examines the significance of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in JEM Ag Supply Inc v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc with respect to utility patents and hybrid seed. Part 3 considers the Supreme Court of Canada case of Harvard College v the Commissioner of Patents dealing with the transgenic animal, oncomouse, and discusses its implications for the forthcoming appeal from the Federal Court case of Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto.

Genentech and the stolen gene: Patent law and pioneer inventions

This paper evaluates the litigation over the biotechnology patent dispute between the University of California and Genentech. First it outlines the scientific work behind the cloning of the human growth hormone, and looks at the patent office, and its treatment of biotechnological inventions. Second, it considers the court room dispute, and the legal case of the University of California and the biotechnology company in this dispute. Finally, it considers the implications of this dispute for policy reform in respect of patent law and biotechnology.