Creative Rights Decoded: A Journey Through Theories of IPR

This blog is written by Mahee Mishra , she is a First year law student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.

Imagine you just invented a groundbreaking new technology or composed a hit song that went viral. Shouldn’t you be able to protect these creations from being copied or misused? That’s the essence of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). They are the rights given to persons over the creations of their minds. They grant creators exclusive rights to their work, incentivizing innovation and creativity. But why should society uphold these rights, and what theories underpin their existence? This blog deals with the various theories that justify intellectual property rights, exploring their historical roots, contemporary relevance, and challenges they face in a rapidly evolving world. 

Ancient Guardians to Modern Marvels:

Intellectual Property Rights have a long and complicated history, evolving together with human civilization. The evidence of IP-like laws stretches back to ancient Greece and Rome, where playwrights and inventors were awarded protection for their work. However, the modern concept of intellectual property arose throughout the Renaissance in Europe, with Venice’s Patent Statute of 1474 being regarded as one of the first official patent laws. With the emergence of trade and commerce in the 18th and 19th centuries, the value of safeguarding ideas and inventions grew. In 1883, the Paris Convention helped the creators to protect their intellectual property in other countries. The U.S. Constitution empowered Congress “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”. 

Modern Landscape and Theories in Focus:

Today, IPR is vital in different industries, from technology and medicine to entertainment and design. IPR is recognized internationally through agreements like the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which sets minimum standards for IP protection across World Trade Organization (WTO) member states. Technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and big data challenge traditional notions of creation, ownership, and infringement. They are intended to strike a balance between the creator’s rights and the public’s need for access to information and innovation. Let’s explore different theories that justify IPR in this position.

1. Natural Rights Theory

The Theory of Natural Rights is based on the belief that individuals possess inherent rights to the products of their labor and intellect. In his book “The Treatise of Government” (1690), John Locke explains his idea of property rights. He believes that people can claim ownership of things in the world, like land and other physical resources, based on natural laws. He posited that when people combine their labor with natural resources, they get ownership of the end product. This theory holds that creators have a natural right to control and benefit from their creations, as they are an extension of their labor and effort. The Natural Rights Theory underscores the importance of recognizing and respecting individual ownership of creations. It supports the idea that creators should be rewarded for their labor and have the right to control how their work is used. 

2. Utilitarian Theory

The Utilitarian Theory takes a practical and pragmatic approach, focusing on the broader benefits of society. It justifies IPR as a means to an end. This theory traces back to thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who believed in “greatest good for the greatest number”. The theory is based on the idea that combining industrial growth with cultural products can boost the economy and benefit society as a whole. It argues that granting intellectual property rights promotes innovation and creativity, ultimately benefiting society as a whole. IPR acts as a reward system that encourages people to invest time and resources into creating new works and technologies. Pharmaceutical Companies frequently use this notion to support the protection of drug patents, claiming that it encourages the discovery of new medications. This approach is also used by the technology industry to safeguard software patents to promote innovation in computing and digital technologies. 

3. Personality Theory

The Personality Theory views intellectual property rights as an extension of an individual’s personality and creativity. This viewpoint holds that intellectual property is a manifestation of the creator’s personality and should be protected as an expression of self. The personality theory is associated with Georg Hegel, who believed that ownership increased the individual’s inherent field of freedom beyond his body as a part of the material world. The Personality Theory points to the personal connection between creators and their work. It supports the notion that intellectual property is not just about economic benefits but also about preserving the creator’s identity and expression. Artists and authors often identify with this theory because their work is a direct reflection of their creativity and personality. The protection of moral rights, which permits creators to assert authorship and prevent their work from being distorted, aligns with this theory.

 

4. Social Justice Theory

The Social Justice Theory focuses on the larger social consequences of Intellectual Property Rights. This idea calls for a balanced approach that ensures intellectual property laws do not create unequal outcomes or limit access to critical knowledge and resources. The theory raises concern about the potential negative effects of overly restrictive intellectual property laws and stresses that these laws should promote fairness and equity, avoiding monopolistic practices that harm society. The theory advocates for the democratization of knowledge and cultural resources, challenging traditional views of exclusivity, and prioritizing the public good over individual profit. The open-source movement is consistent with this philosophy, encouraging collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Roadblocks and Contemporary Obstacles:

1. Digital Age and Piracy

Digital technology has transformed how we create and distribute content and has also contributed to increased digital piracy. Unauthorized copying and distribution of intellectual property, such as music, movies, and software have posed substantial issues to rights holders. This situation pushes the limits of Utilitarian Theory, as pervasive piracy undermines the incentives for innovation and creativity.

 

2. Patent Trolling and Overreach

In the field of patents, “patent trolls” have become a major issue. These organizations buy patents for the sole purpose of suing corporations, claiming infringement, and collecting monetary compensation. This technique stifles innovation and fosters a culture of fear among entrepreneurs and startups. It also raises problems regarding innovation and allowing for exploitation, which is related to the Utilitarian Theory. Additionally, patent overreach, in which too broad patents impede competition, has become an issue. This issue calls into question the current patent system’s effectiveness and ability to balance incentives against broader social objectives. 

3. Access to Medicines and Social Justice 

Pharmaceutical patents have the potential to raise drug prices, limiting access to essential medicines for many people. This topic has spurred disputes concerning the ethical implications of intellectual property rights, particularly in the light of Social Justice Theory. The balance between rewarding pharmaceutical innovation and guaranteeing affordable access to life-saving drugs is a complex challenge. 

4. Trademark Disputes and Brand Identity

Trademarks protect brand names and logos, but they can also cause conflicts over domain names and brand identity. As organizations develop abroad, trademark dilution and domain name issues have become more common. These difficulties relate to the Personality Theory, where the identity and reputation of a brand are at stake. 

Pivotal Rulings Observed:

1. R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films (1978)

In this key judgment. The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of copyright infringement on creative works. R.G. Anand, a playwright, accused M/s Delux Films of copying his play for the film. The court determined that, while copyright protects the expression of ideas, it does not protect the ideas themselves. This decision is consistent with the Natural Rights Theory, which emphasizes that creators should retain control over the unique expression of their work. 

2. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manu Kishori & Others (2001)

Tata Sons Ltd., a significant Indian corporation, sued Manu Kishori for using the ‘Tata’ name in a domain name, alleging trademark infringement. The court ruled in favor of Tata Sons, acknowledging that trademarks are an extension of brand identity and should be protected from infringement. This judgment resonates with the Personality Theory, which focuses on the personal and brand relationship to intellectual property. 

3. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)

The Novartis case concerned the interpretation of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which limits patents to incremental changes that do not establish significant efficacy. Novartis AG, a pharmaceutical company, sought a patent for its cancer therapy Glivec, but the Indian Supreme Court denied it, underlining that the patent system should not restrict access to important medicines in the absence of significant innovation. This decision exemplifies the Social Justice Theory, which addresses the balance between rewarding innovation and ensuring public health.  

 

4. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)

This case concerns copyright protection for a collection of court judgments. Eastern Book Company accused D.B. Modak of copying their work. The court developed the “sweat of the brow” theory, which recognizes that intellectual effort and creativity in compelling works are protected. This assessment is consistent with the Utilitarian Theory, as it promotes creative activities that benefit society. 

Visualizing the Concept:

 

Assume you’re in a crowded art market, where artists are displaying their unique paintings and sculptures. Each work of art displays the artist’s creativity, ability, and countless hours of effort. Let’s imagine an artist, Alex paints a stunning picture that rapidly becomes the talk of the town. People go to see it, and many take photos to share on social media. However, a few days later, Alex discovers that a local retailer is selling t-shirts with his paintings printed on them without his permission. Not only is Alex losing potential profits, but his artwork is being exploited in ways he never planned. IPR is intended to prevent this type of misuse. They grant creators like Alex exclusive rights over how their work is used, ensuring that they profit from their efforts. IPR permits Alex to take legal action against those who use his artwork without authorization. By safeguarding his rights, society encourages artists to produce without fear of having their work stolen or exploited. In this way, IPR promotes creativity and innovation, benefitting not just the creators but also those who enjoy their work. 

On the whole, Intellectual Property Rights are critical to promoting creativity and innovation, yet the landscape is complex and ever-changing. This blog examined the historical development of IPR, its current significance, and the key arguments that justify its existence. Several theories provide a unique perspective on the role of IPR in preserving creative rights. Today’s digital concerns, such as piracy, patent trolling, access to important medicines, and trademark conflicts, focus on the continual need to strike a balance between safeguarding innovation and supporting broader social interests. By supporting IPR, society not only protects individual creator’s rights but also encourages a dynamic environment conducive to innovation. This blog emphasizes the importance of constantly reassessing and refining IPR frameworks to preserve a balance between intellectual property protection and fair access to knowledge and resources. Achieving this balance is critical for a flourishing and equitable society. 

REFERENCES:

1. World Trade Organization, 'Overview: The TRIPS Agreement' (World Trade Organization, 2023)

2. Moore A D, 'A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited' (2012) 49 San Diego Law Review 1069.

3. David Bainbridge, 'A Utilitarian Theory of Intellectual Property' in Annabelle Lever (ed), New Frontiers in the Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2012) 59

4. Intellectual Property Firm in the Middle East | ABOU NAJA, ‘History and Evolution of Intellectual Property’ (17 August 2020)

5. David R Lea, 'A Historical Perspective on Ownership as Seen through the Philosophies of Kant and Hegel' (1997) 2(6) European Legacy 977.

6. Lauren Cohen, Umit G Gurun and Scott Duke Kominers, 'Patent Trolls: Evidence from Targeted Firms' (2019) 65(12) Management Science 5461.

7.  R.G. Anand v M/S Delux Films & Ors [1978] AIR 1613 (SC)

8. Tata Sons Limited v Mr. Manu Kishori & Ors [2001] III AD 545 (DELHI)