Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 6,811 items :

  • Innovation and Technology x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

The Future of Creative Work

Creativity and Digital Disruption

Edited by Greg Hearn

The Future of Creative Work provides a unique overview of the changing nature of creative work, examining how digital developments and the rise of intangible capital are causing an upheaval in the social institutions of work. It offers a profound insight into how this technological and social evolution will affect creative professions.
This content is available to you

Edited by Mitsuru Kodama

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Mitsuru Kodama

Illustrating the interdisciplinary implications for research on creativity development, this book focuses on the new concept of ‘knowledge differences’ that arise between people, organizations and various phenomena. It describes how these key differences create boundaries knowledge, a dynamic process that accelerates innovation.
This content is available to you

Edited by Mitsuru Kodama

You do not have access to this content

Ming Chen and Xiaohai Liu

Bad faith trademark filings are a serious problem in China. During the fourth revision of the Chinese Trademark Law in 2019, bad faith filings without the intention to use the trademark was added as an absolute ground, with the aim that the Chinese Trademark Law can cope with the bad faith filings problem more effectively. Nevertheless, compared with the EU trademark system, the bad faith filing in the Chinese Trademark Law is not an absolute autonomous ground. Different kinds of bad faith filings are regulated by different clauses respectively. Some trademarks filed in bad faith can only be dealt with by relative grounds and cannot be invalidated after five years of their registrations. In order to deter malicious registration, bad faith filings per se should be introduced into the Chinese Trademark Law as an autonomous absolute ground. Trademarks filed in bad faith should be invalidated at any time.

You do not have access to this content

Ke Yu and Colin Darch

We build on the well-established critique, primarily in the US literature, of the following assumptions: (1) copyright protections serve to incentivise creativity; (2) copyright is designed with such incentivisation as its primary purpose; and (3) a standardized set of copyright protections should ideally be applicable to all forms of cultural production, across all situations in all countries. These assumptions lead to two fundamental conceptual flaws in much current copyright policy discourse: (1) it conflates concepts such as incentive, reward, and recognition; (2) it is nomothetic in character insofar as the existing structural and procedural diversity of the different cultural industries that it governs is inadequately acknowledged. Our critique in this article is not, therefore, a general one, but is limited to a specific theory of copyright, which pretends that copyright is an incentive to creativity while the evidence indicates that it is not. We highlight the importance of taking account of the whole ‘creativity value chain’ in the different industries with their various components – the creator, the copyright holder, the distributor, and the market. Drawing on case studies of three creative industries: literary writing, film, and fashion, we demonstrate that not only is there currently considerable heterogeneity among these industries, but that there has also been heterogeneity within each industry at different periods and in different contexts. We argue that this flexibility is a beneficial characteristic of the current functioning of copyright that should be defended against pressures in favour of harmonization.

You do not have access to this content

Zhe Wang, Yifan Lin and Yajing Zhou

How to judge the formation of Malicious Incompatibility is a problem that cannot be circumvented and is difficult to solve in the trial of new types of unfair competition on the Internet. Although the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law explicitly stipulates Malicious Incompatibility as unfair competition, it fails to provide a clear set of judgment criteria. Germany and the United States have respectively developed complete laws and regulations and created judgment rules to deal with new unfair competition disputes arising in the development of the Internet, providing China with a lot of referential trial ideas. By collecting and analyzing the judgment documents and trial ideas of previous cases, this paper, focusing on the internal logic of malice and incompatibility in the law, tries to judge whether the behavior constitutes Malicious Incompatibility considered from the perspective of subjective purposes and the objective effects caused by the behavior and with the method of value measurement.

This content is available to you

Johanna Gibson