The World Intellectual Property Organization : Protection for Writers and Artists

How WIPO was born
In 1974, a little known organization joined the United Nations. It was known as WIPO, short for World Intellectual Property Organization. It had its roots in 1883 when fourteen countries met in Paris and established conventions for the protection of trademarks, inventions (patents) and industrial designs. Some years later, at the Berne Convention, the concept of copyright was born so that writers, musicians and artists could have protection for their work as well.

The individuals who attended these two conventions formed a small organization, initially named BIRPI, that was based in Berne, Switzerland and had a staff of seven. In 1960, BIRPI moved to Geneva, then reorganized, changed its name to WIPO (World International Property Organization), and joined the United Nations in 1974. Many conventions followed, increasing the scope of the organization, in particular, with the advent of the Internet. The WIPO-UNESCO Committee of Government Experts on Copyright Problems arising from the Use of Computers for Access and Creation of Works was held in Paris in December 1980 and June 1982 to decide on Internet issues (Ficsor, The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 Wipo Treaties, their Interpretation and Implementation, 6). It was probably this convention that made WIPO a mainstream organization for the first time. By the early part of the 21st century, it had 182 member states and it employed nearly a 1000 people.

If You Invent Something, You want to PROTECT it!
In the 120 years since the concept of intellectual property was borne, new inventions have swept the globe. Computer software programs, photocopiers, cell phones, television, washing machines, telephones, permanent hair dye, domain names have become reality. As information becomes easier to obtain (from books, from reverse engineering, from deconstruction, from mouth to mouth), those that invent and create wish to keep the financial proceeds of their invention and creation for themselves. However, this is not always easy. On the internet, millions download music, while those in business will often steal a name (Gucci, Rolex) and paste it to their goods. Intellectual properly is difficult to protect. With the deluge of new products being invented on an hourly basis, it becomes even more difficult to ensure that those who invented the product receive financial and prestigious credit for it.

Most countries have copyright laws (protecting the intellectual property of writers, poets and musicians). In the United States, copyright is for the lifetime of the creator and 70 years after death (How Long Copyright Protection Endures). In most countries, copyright can be inherited. For example, in the United Kingdom, JM Barrie left the copyright of Peter Pan to the Great Ormond Street Hospital – a children’s charity hospital in London - and Lord Callaghan granted copyright in perpetuity for this particular book and institution in 1988 (Peter Pan Copyright). European copyright, however, expires in 2007 (Peter Pan Copyright) and therefore the Children’s Hospital have commissioned a sequel (Peter Pan). Copyright is big business for something that sells well.

Purpose of WIPO
If each country is able to legislate its own intellectual property laws, then why is WIPO necessary? WIPO establishes international standards, explores new issues, e.g. the patenting of gene therapy, and facilitates resolution of disputes between countries. WIPO attempts to bring global consensus to intellectual property. Fundamental to these questions, though, is the biggest question of all: Is intellectual creativity and production ‘property’ in the conventional meaning of the word? And if not, why should there be a limit on the ownership of that property? Kembrew McLeod, a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Iowa University, covers these issues in his book on the topic (McLeod).

Property Rights Increasingly Disputed
Increasingly, there are disputes about intellectual property rights. Currently, China is the villain of piece. Australian Industry Group chief executive, Heather Ridout, in a speech given recently at a Symposium on China-Australia FTA in Beijing, said, "Despite efforts by Chinese authorities in recent years to crack down on the infringement of intellectual property rights, piracy and counterfeiting remain a critical problem. The problem of IP infringements is also being exported. China is also a major source of counterfeit and pirated exports to other industrialized countries, including Australia." Yet, most goods that are affordable to the peoples of the world come from China. It is China that enables most of us to be able to afford what we otherwise could not.

Examples of Disputed Intellectual Property Ownership
Another hot topic is the patenting of gene therapy. In the United Kingdom, the Nuffield Foundation created the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in July, 2002, of and then published ‘The Ethics of Patenting DNA’. The concern is how much patenting genes would benefit or not benefit humanity. “’It is important to question whether patents involving genes could adversely affect healthcare and research,’ says Dr Sandy Thomas, Director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Diagnostic tests and medicines could become unaffordable or unavailable, the development of new ones might be slowed down, and research could be inhibited The Council calls on patent offices worldwide to work together to examine ways to ensure that the patent system is fairly, but rigorously applied in the case of DNA.” (Nuffield Council on Bioethics Urges Caution in Patenting DNA).

The Council calls on patent offices worldwide to work together to examine ways to ensure that the patent system is fairly, but rigorously applied in the case of DNA.” (Nuffield Council on Bioethics Urges Caution in Patenting DNA).

The growing body knowledge and invention has always been built on the foundations of a previous discoverer. With this in mind, there is not only a moratorium on the life of intellectual property, but a legal obligation to share the intellectual property even if it

The growing body knowledge and invention has always been built on the foundations of a previous discoverer. With this in mind, there is not only a moratorium on the life of intellectual property, but a legal obligation to share the intellectual property even if it cannot be reproduced for profit for a certain length of time. (In order to patent something, it must be original (new) and not easy to think of (obvious). It’s not possible to patent what is obvious. ”One of the claimed advantages of the patent system is that it obliges the inventor to publish details of his or her invention, allowing academic scientists to study it. But as soon as a researcher tries to make commercial use of developments based on the original patent - by going into partnership with a drugs firm, for instance, or charging patients at cost for a genetic test - the patent holder can step in to stop them, or oblige them to pay a license fee” (Meek). Lawrence Lessig, the man the New York Times calls, ‘The most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet Era’ Free Culture’ and Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, blogs, “But I do believe that copyright was about economics. And I continue to believe copyright is important, primarily for economic reasons. But that again is precisely why we wanted to create a simpler copyright, for the many, many creators who either are not creating for economic ends, or who believe that control over their creativity is not a necessary means to their economic success” (Lessig). So there develops an overzealousness to protect ideas, inventions, trademarks, etc.

WIPO: Increased Legal Protection of Intellectual Property
It is this desire to profit from creative ideas and inventions that is propelling the increased number of laws pertaining to intellectual property. Yet it is not easy to police the legislation. A few days ago, I purchased Dreamweaver MX from Gradware. I obtained it at 25% of the selling price. I asked the sales lady why Macromedia was willing to sell their software at such a reduced price. It seems that the company is only too aware that if students can’t afford to pay for it, they will hijack it. Working on the principle that most people wish to be honest, if they could afford it, the company dropped the price for students. Microsoft and other software companies follow suit (www.gradware.com).

WIPO: Unethical Patenting of Creative Ideas
Putting too tight a leash on creative ideas and patenting inventions can also be unethical. It costs money to patent an innovative idea and the person who patents the idea or invention is not always the first one to have it, but rather the first one to have the money/education to patent it. Scientific American Mind in an article (Kraft) stated, “Originality is not a gift doled out sparingly by the gods. We can call it up from within us through training and encouragement.” As education institutions gradually begin to train people in creativity, it is likely that even more people will come up with similar ideas. (It is known that several of the world’s inventions were simultaneously thought up by inventors in different parts of the world.) If this happens, just who would get to be the holder of intellectual property rights? The richest one who can afford to pay for it? And would profiteering become part and parcel of the patenting process? Would it be the person who got there first, who simply lived around the corner from the patenting office? Could the same idea be patented in different countries or would it be an international body? These are all questions that need to be answered and will need to be looked at as most human beings begin to expand their own creativity.

WIPO: Entrepreneurs Profit to Unfair Degree from Scientists, Writers, Musicians, Artists, etc.
In summing up, there are two conflicts here. The first is that artists, authors, inventors, musicians are entitled to credit, both financial and otherwise, for their work. The second is the misuse that entrepreneurs and the unscrupulous take. “Donald Trump not only trademarked ‘You’re Fired,’ but also his hand gesture that accompanied the phrase on The Apprentice,” (Kembrie, 3). By what right does Mr. Trump take an expression and hand gesture in everyday use and trademark it? Does this now mean the rest of humanity who were using these gestures routinely must now stop using them and be open to legal action if they use something that up till now has been in the common domain? Perhaps, it’s all summed up rather aptly on the inside cover of Professor Kembrie’s book, “The trend towards privatization of everything – melodies, genes, public space, the English language – means an inevitable clash of economic values against the value of free speech, creativity, and shared resources” (Kembrie). Is WIPO’s mission to protect intellectual property an advance for civilization or is it the beginning of the end for creative individuals? The case rests.