The Care and Shelter of Children and Adolescents in Brazil: Expressions of Social Issues

The future of Brazilian children who have the protection offered by familial bonds is threatened by social inequities that force them to seek shelter and grow up in shelters. According to the Institute of Applied Economic Research, an estimated 20,000 children and adolescents are served by institutions. The majority of these children are afro-descendent males between the ages of seven and fifteen years old. Of those researched, 87.6% have families (58.2% receive visits from their families, 22.7% are rarely visited by their families and 5.8 are legally prohibited from contacting or being by their families). The percentage of children and adolescents “without families” or with “missing families” is 11.3%. There is no information available for 2% of the children and adolescents residing in shelters. The principle factors that necessitate the placement of Brazilian children in institutions that provide care and shelter include poverty (including children forced to work, sell drugs or beg, for example); domestic violence; chemical dependence of parents or guardians; homelessness; death or parents or guardian; imprisonment of their parents; and sexual abuse committed by their parents or guardians. The issue of abandoned children and adolescents and their care and shelter in the Brazilian context expresses a perverse violation of Child and Adolescent Rights.

Sui Generis Rights for the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions Policy Implications

Within the international community there have been many calls for better protection of traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), for which classic instruments of intellectual property rights do not seem to fit. In response, at least five model laws have been advanced within the last 40 years. These are referred to as sui generis because, though they generally belong to the realm of intellectual property they structurally depart from classic copyright law to accommodate the needs of the holders of TCEs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a well-founded basis for national policy makers who wish to implement protection for TCEs within their country. This is achieved by systematically comparing and evaluating economic effects that can be expected to result from these regulatory alternatives and a related system or private ordering. Specifically, we compare if and how protection preferences of local communities are met as well as the social costs that are likely to arise from the different model laws.

GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?

In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.

‘Abuse of Rights’ in Belgian and French Patent Law – A Case Law Analysis

This paper examines what types of actions undertaken by patent holders have been considered as abusive in the framework of French and Belgian patent litigation. Particular attention is given to the principle of the prohibition of “abuse of rights” (AoR). In the jurisdictions under scrutiny, the principle of AoR is essentially a jurisprudential construction in cases where judges faced a particular set of circumstances for which no codified rules were available. To investigate how judges deal with the prohibition of AoR in patent litigation and taking into account the jurisprudential nature of the principle, an in-depth and comparative case law analysis has been conducted. Although the number of cases in which patent holders have been sanctioned for such abuses is not overabundant, they do provide sufficient leads on what is understood by Belgian and French courts to constitute an abuse of patent rights. From this comparative analysis, useful lessons can be learned for the interpretation of the ambiguous notion of ‘abuse’ from a broader perspective.