Hemmungs Wirtén

From Digital Culture Reviews

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] About the Author

Eva Hemmungs Wirtén is a Professor in Library and Information Science (also Associate Professor in Comparative Literature) at Uppsala University. Her research is focused on the history, theory and philosophy of intellectual property and the public domain. She is currently developing an international research network surronding with culture, creativity and copyright (CCC). Hemmungs Wirten is currently writing a new book entitled, Libratory Life: Law and the Unmaking of Knowledge, 1976-2006, where she highlights the impact of intellectual property in research and higher education.

[edit] Abstract

Due to the digital revolution and the ever-increasing use of the internet, discussions around the conflict between copyright and the public domain are becoming increasingly prevalent in popular culture. While these discussions have been debated by legal scholars, in online forums and blogs the book "Terms of Use" is one of the first publications to concentrate on the conceptual foundations of the public domain. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Eva Hemmungs Wirtén reveals the nineteenth-century origins of contemporary phenomena such as blogs, wikis, the 'creative commons,' as well as the 'open source' and 'open access' movements [1]. Hemmungs Wirtén examines topics as diverse as the pharmaceutical uses of plants, the patenting of DNA sequences, and Disney's reworking of Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books in order to provide a comprehensive theoretical discussion of how nature and culture have been transformed into intellectual property. The publication 'Terms of Use' will challenge and inspire readers by providing an original and innovative approach to the understanding of the public domain and its origins.

[edit] Summary/Reviews

In Terms of Use, Swedish scholar Eva Hemmungs Wirtén seeks to deepen our understanding of issues surrounding the Internet, digitization and the public domain. These issues are most often discussed today in legal terms, making the public domain "a lawyer-free" zone that is ironically crowded with lawyers. The author instead chooses a “stubbornly historical” path, exploring what meanings the public domain and the commons, as well as intellectual property rights and copyright accrued through time.[2]

Rather than offer a sweeping intellectual history, Hemmungs Wirtén narrows her focus to case studies involving the actual jungle – a decision that she admits readers may find “arbitrary if not downright bizarre” – and the British Empire in the Victorian era. This allows her to examine the commons in reference to imperialism and the jungle as a site for the mining of resources. Within this book, there is a chapter dedicated to plants (such as the cinchona tree, the source of quinine) and how the science commons model developed in the North exploited the South. Control of biological diversity has swung to the nation state in recent decades, which raises its own problems. Such as, more restrictions on use of biological resources by indigenous people. There is a chapter on jungle animals, which were broadly conceived of as useless in the wild and having value only if available for visual spectacle, whether in zoos or stuffed. This takes Dr. Hemmungs Wirtén to modern-day museums and art galleries that commit “copyfraud,” claiming copyright when reprinting works that are actually in the public domain, such as Henri Rousseau’s jungle paintings. The final chapter considers the route from Kipling’s The Jungle Books to Disney’s The Jungle Book, and holds up Disney both as an exemplar of the cultural value of appropriating existing works and as the godfather of copyright litigation.[3]

Imposing the jungle into the book’s fabric causes particular problems. The 19th-century case studies occupy too much text, resulting in abrupt end-of-chapter transition into the 21st century. Most puzzling of all, the book’s subtitle actually negates one of the book’s central arguments. Whereas Dr. Hemmungs Wirtén seeks to reclaim the jungle as a site used historically for appropriating biological and cultural resources of value, the title "Negotiating the Jungle of the Intellectual Commons" simply reinforces the longstanding metaphor of the jungle as a dark and dangerous place that must be slashed through.[4]

Despite these problems, Terms of Use is an easy read. The author’s untiring effort to squeeze more research, more 19th- and 21st-century connections, more analysis onto every page is quite fascinating. There are fascinating asides relating to the longstanding peasant right to gleaning (the collecting of stray grain missed during harvest); the Prince of Wales’s 9,000-person hunting party in India in 1876; and the rationing of Disney cartoons by 1970s Swedish television to one hour per year, on Christmas Eve. More centrally, Dr. Hemmungs Wirtén in conclusion makes a compelling case that copyright, originally designed to reward creativity and to spur innovation, is now too often used to hinder innovation. On the other hand, allowing ideas to travel in the public domain, allows for their free exchange. Particularly encouraging the “after-thinking” about existing ideas that is essential in producing new ones. Though it can be difficult to retrace how the book came to that conclusion – is the Victorian jungle, free to all (British), a model for the intellectual commons, then? – Terms of Use is indisputably provocative. Like the commons itself, it lends itself to after-thinking.[5]


[edit] Sources

Who Owns The Jungle

[edit] Chapter 1: 'From Time Immemorial': Customary Rights, Rites of Custom

[edit] Chapter Summary

Multiple representations of land permeate and structure the way we think about the public domain [6]. The first chapter considers at some length the underlying historical and theoretical principles that have shaped our current understanding of the public domain. Real and metaphorical land (arguments for and against private property) holds a prominent place in this discussion.

[edit] Primary Argument

Chapter one underlines the historical and theoretical principles which have helped shape the current understandings of the public domain. The primary argument discusses the struggle over the right to culture-- is it a common good or a commercial product? This chapter highlights a tremendous tension and struggle over the notion of culture. Is it a communally held activity of individuals and groups or is it a commerce in which industries employ individuals in the production of various things? Is it a common good for all or is it a business where those who can afford it can access it? The chapter highlights how the term 'enclosure', once understood as fencing in public property (the commons), remains prevalent within society today. From this chapter, we learn how yesterday’s 'digging' and 'grazing' has become today’s 'googling' and 'sampling' and how the commons and the public domain contribute to such radical transformations.

[edit] Enclosure

The land in England throughout the 1700's consisted primarily of large fields, open grazing fields for all to the community to share and live together in. By the 1800's, much of the land in England began to become enclosed, fenced in and claimed by property owners.[7]

[edit] Colonial Enclosure

The main analytical aim of Chapter 1 was to forge a connection between enclosure 'at home' and enclosure as part of the logic of imperialism. It explains how the rules and policies within one country are influential to the development and use of rules in other countries and colonies as well. A national interest along lines of improvement and development were established within the Victorian Era. However, both the ceremonial and symbolic acts that were used by various European powers were very different from one another. The French, for instance, used parades and ceremonies to gain consent for their actions where as the Portuguese claimed property rights based on their superior technology and seafaring/map making capabilities. The Dutch, like the Portuguese, regarded information as propriety. The English however, were very unique in how they marked private vs. public property. They used gardening and cultivation as a symbolic way of justifying their colonial project. English settlements in the New World were therefore not about parades, technology, or map making, but about the everyday practices of building fences and planting gardens. The raising of fences indicated not only a distinction in property, but also an improvement of society. Sometimes symbolic fences can employ a strong meaning then actual barbed wire or structures that create actual physical barriers.

[edit] Resistance to Enclosure

[edit] Diggers

  • These were organized groups of people who opposed the enclosure of land. they opposed the privatization of land, and dug and tore down fences that enlaced open land. They questioned the authority of those who decided that a portion of land was rightfully theirs.

The Diggers were a group of English protestant communists who attempted to reform the existing social order by leveling existing property to create rural communities. Once they began to put their ideas into practice and began cultivating the land they became known as “the diggers.” Led by Gerrard Winstanley who firmly believed “true freedom lies where a man receives his nourishment and preservation, and that is in the use of the earth.” How has this concept affected the 20th century? During the mid to late 1960s there was the development of the San Francisco Diggers. They were known as a radical community action group who much like the English diggers envisioned a society free from private property and all forms of buying and selling. The San Francisco diggers put their beliefs into practice by opening stores which simply gave their stock away, they also provided food, medical care, transportation and even housing. They also organized numerous free music concerts and works of political art.

Digger thinking evolved around a few central themes: -depiction of land as "common treasury relief for all." -he that works for another either for wages or to pay him rent, works unrighteously. A similar concept to socialism. Socialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land etc., in the community as a whole.

Interesting video clip on consuming and the idea of "free":

[edit] Examples

Burning Man Festival Each year tens of thousands of individuals gather in Black Rock City, Nevada. The virtually unlivable land transforms into a community of individuals gathering to participate in a society that is removed from the technological and economic aspects of society. This society is based on trade and gift-giving and all money is removed. During this time artists gather to share their work, not for profit but to allow others to experience their creations. It is encouraged that all attendees participate in the festivities and work together with others to battle and enjoy the dessert (Kristen, 2003). The Burning Man festival can be described as a small version of intentional communities. An intentional community is “a residential community drawn together through shared principles with members who have chosen to live in a communal lifestyle and environment” (Sargisson & Sargent, 2004) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNv93IgQymA

[edit] Gleaning

The author looks at practice known as Gleaning. After a farmer would harvest their fields, Gleaners would come to the field and pick up any grains or produce that were left behind or missed in the process. It was a very important part of peoples lives, as it provided them with food that they could not have afforded.

The Gleaners, by Jean-FrancoisMillet.
The Gleaners, by Jean-FrancoisMillet.

Gleaning has close ties with Jewish and Catholic religion, as the mosaic law states :"And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God" (Lev. xix. 9, 10).[8] With the mention of this 'right' in religious scripture, commoners felt that enclosure was taking away their God given rights. Some farmers has a problem with people taking their property, something that they owned and made themselves. Gleaners saw it as a right, and thought that since the food was leftover, and was not going to be used anyways, it might as well be given to those who need it. Gleaners began to have rules and restrictions regarding when they were allowed to glean, and how much of the ‘property’ they were allowed to take. This is illustrated through farmers making gleaners only glean during daylight hours so that everyone would see them doing it.

[edit] Examples

Advocates of the right to glean in modern days have taken this idea to the electronic frontier and have opened up databases and resources that allow visitors to glean older software and electornic information. The Urban Ministry [9]an organization that aims to make software free to those of the less fortunate, with the idea that most software companies make the majority of their profit after only a few years of its initial release, where then afterwards, it should be available for free to those who cannot afford it.

[edit] Loppers

The traditional use of land before enclosure had a lot to do with gathering and collecting of resources, such as firewood. Commoners in the winter months would be allowed to cut branches off of trees for firewood during the winter months. In 1866, the areas permitting lopping were enclosed. A tradition that the commoners took part in for years was put to an end by the enclosure and privatization of land. Those who continued to go lopping were considered 'trespassers' and were prosecuted and sentenced to prison. After much protest, loppers were given money to compensate for their loss of the right to Lopp, which was used to build a hall in their town called the "Loppers Hall". This hall was the new gathering place for lopping. The meaning of lopping changed to simply gathering at the new Loppers Hall to celebrate and talk about amongst each other.[10]

[edit] Commons and Public Space

[edit] Urban Commons

The idea of the urban commons is now more about the visual then the physical use. There is now the "want" for space and beauty as a place to escape the dismal conditions of the rapidly expanding urban cities and industrialization. This kind of common became less tied to the idea of subsistence living through gleaning and became about satisfying the increasingly important need for recreation, relaxation, and leisure. In 1866, Frederick Law Olmstead stressed that the most important advantage for a town is having a public park because it added to the health, strength, and morality of the people. Olmstead firmly believed reaching such morality was not achieved through advertising displays, the sounds of steam engines, or commercial traffic but rather, by the making of pastoral vistas and scenery that offered contrast to the rest of the expanding industrialization. If the parks were open to and used by the public, the same public would perceive a well kept garden as common property and would therefore value this space.

[edit] Examples

A current example of the this type of urban common transformation would be High Line Park in New York city. High Line park was initially elevated railroad tracks which was converted into what is now known as “the park in the sky.”

[edit] Urban Publics

The public that we know today is different than the commoners in history, as the public today requires private life. The outcome of private life (i.e. having a place of your own, an income etc) gives individuals the ability to gather and function in public. In urban publics there is a cost to nearly all of the functions of public gathering spaces, such as film’s, concerts, museums. Those public spaces that are free of charge are, more often than not, decorated with promotions and advertisements. The use of mediated communication and mass culture gives the public focal points for thought and discussion, which Hemmungs Wirten argues, obstructs the publics ability to have a rational and critical discussion [11].

[edit] Examples

There is a study that took place by Lee Humphreys[12] from Cornell University that examined the use of mobile social networking and its relation to use of public places. Through the use of mobile networks like Dodgeball (similar to foursquare a service that allows you to check in to places and meet people), the researcher discovered that public spaces were becoming slightly more privatized with services like these. Although these applications are designed for users to meet new people in urban spaces, people were more or less just meeting up with people that they knew. This means that people’s interactions and public spaces are being predetermined and planned out and include only a private group of people that they knew from before, therefore negating the purpose of "public" places.

[edit] Information Commons

Throughout this chapter, Hemmungs Wirten illustrated the idea of how the commons is "tracked into the networked and knowledge-intensive present" [13]. Society has been introduced to an intangible commons of the mind recognized as the learning commons. The media saturated, online, and globalized information age depends on an information commons (clusters of computers servicing the needs of the public). The 'decentered' and 'deterritorialized' nature of the information commons makes it appear very different from commons of the past and represents the ultimate disconnection from actual land [14]. When using the term 'information commons' in the twenty-first century, a virtual and digital space is thought of. The emergence of the World Wide Web transitioned the commons from a tangible area of land to a symbolic and virtual space. The information commons is simply made of a very different raw material than traditional soil, turf or grass. The tragedy of the commons describes how information is both the outcome and the prerequisite for production. This idea is better understood by understanding the commons of the past: if you imagine a pasture open to all, each herdsman will not be altruistic, rather he will try his utmost to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons even when the end result will prove to be detrimental to himself. From this notion, it is believed that as long as a functioning balance is acquired between what the land can hold and its perscribed use, than everything will be just "dandy". The problem with this unfortunately, is that in today's society this state of equilibrium is very unrealistic and unlikely. In the digital age, people are streaming movies and downloading music in lower qualities simply for the immediacy of it. Although the information commons is recognized as a virtual space, a need for fences has been established. Although they are not made of wood or barbed wire, they serve the same purpose and make it increasingly difficult to access information.

[edit] Something to Think About

From the issue of physical property and the rights to use it onto the digital age and intellectual property rights. This is a website which supports legal and technical infastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing and innovation. http://creativecommons.org/

[edit] Further Questions

  1. How can the diggers and loppers of the Victorian Era be connected to Hackers in the information commons today?

[edit] Critiques

"Using the increasingly valuable trope of the intellectual commons, the author might be called a copyright minimalist as against copyright maximalists, who assert that the purpose of copyright and other regimes that protect cultural expression (patents and trademarks) is to maximize the economic value of the expression to the rights holder, whether the rights holder be the creator or some person or organization to which the creator has ceded rights. Maximalists assert the identification of cultural creation as property, with the assumption that such property deserves protection from theft and misappropriation in the same way we prevent others from taking our houses, cars, and wallets." [15]

[edit] Further Reading

Mashing-up: the Rise of User-Generated Content. Eva Hemmungs Wirten

No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization. Eva Hemmungs Wirten

No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. Naomi Klein

Mobile social networks and urban public space - Lee Humphreys, Cornell University, USA

GERRARD WINSTANLEY AND THE DIGGERS.Full Text Available By: Sandell, Ben. History Review, Sep2011, Issue 70, p9-13, 5p

[edit] Key Questions/Study Guide

From this chapter, it is important to understand how society make sense of today's commons by comparing it with yesterday's. The public knows more about the specificity of the information commons by lessons learned about the use of tangible resources and processes of the past. The same arguments of improvement and progress have been used throughout history highlighting the idea of enclosure and the use of fencing. Fencing in of symbolic space in the twenty-first century has become prevalent and known to society. Ultimately, this chapters demonstrates how the public continuously looks at the history to understand the present.

[edit] Chapter 2: 'Drugs of Virtues the Most Rare': Plants, Patents, and the Public Good

[edit] Primary Argument:

Chapter 2 is dedicated towards the discussion of plants (such as the cinchona tree, the source of quinine) and how the "science commons" model developed in the North exploited the South. The control of biological diversity has swung to the nation state in recent decades, which raises its own problems such as, more restrictions on use of biological resources by indigenous people. Hemmungs Wirten explores nineteenth century plundering of the Amazon by imperial powers and hunting as an imperial sport. In a fascinating and creative account of the history of the commons, Hemmungs Wirten uses the theme of a jungle to show the “geopolitical dimensions of the jungle and the unbroken liaison between imperialism and the public domain, contrasting the British Empire with the Empire of globalization and information technology”.[16]

[edit] Plants Exploration:

For the aspiring botanist or simply a curious observer, the Amazon has plenty to offer. The Amazon region is home to tens of thousands of plant species, many of which are the source of modern medicines and local remedies As early Western explorers ventured into the Amazon (which was one of the most enticing parts of the Americas) the incomprehensible array of new flora and fauna before them premised earthly riches beyond what they ever imagined possible.

This chapter is a story of exotic plants and their biomedical uses in sixteenth-century. This chapter deserves a place in this context for several reasons as part of a global commons, plants were by tradition designated an inviolable heritage of mankind and a necessary public good. Unfortunately, darker nuances of colonial exploitation and misuse do not trail far behind that gentlemen's agreement of share and share alike.

[edit] Common Heritage of Mankind & Science Commons:

Since there is constant array of companies working in collaboration with labraotories to conduct research for various purposes, it becomes a question of whether or not this data should be shared openly. If the data is being conducted for the beneficial purposes to humans, they should be able to see the results being concluded in these research labs.

[edit] Key Arguments

Who should own plants? With what limitations and factors?

Diminutive plants occupy a far weightier role in the history of colonialization than their relative smallness would seem to suggest. To complicate things even further, plants themselves are less important to this narrative than the knowledge of what biological material does and can be made to do interns of pharmaceutical application. Centuries of struggles concerning the discovery, control, and use of plants for such purposes involve and intricate web of individual actors, private and public institutions, and property paradigms that are, in their very complexity, emblematic of the hybridity of ownership.

[edit] Are plants used for the public good or for commercialism purposes?

“The universally accepted principal that plant generic resources are a heritage of mankind and should be available without restriction. The idea that no single state can control, let alone own, certain parts of the planet”. Since plants are a creation of "god", then who should decide who owns plants. The reason why everyone should not be given the advantage to own a plant is mainly because people do not understand the use of the plant and what it could cause. Different plants are used for different reasons which can only be figured out by a scientist in a laboratory. Big corporations, companies and government agencies try to control and own plants for both the public good and commercialism reasons. In order for someone to own the rights to a plant, they must get an approved patent. "Patents exist to reward and provide incentives for innovation." Not everyone can receive a patent, one must show the innovation created in the laboratory that will eventually help humans.

[edit] What is public domain?

Public domain works are not restricted by copyright and do not require a license or fee to use. Public domain status allows the user unrestricted access and unlimited creativity

There are three main categories of public domain works:

  • Works that automatically enter the public domain upon creation, because they are not copyrightable:
    • Titles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols, numbers
    • Ideas and facts (e.g., the date of the Gettysburg Address)
    • Processes and systems
    • Government works and documents
  • Works that have been assigned to the public domain by their creators
  • Works that have entered the public domain because the copyright on them has expired. (Note: Use of some works, such as ideas and symbols, may be restricted by other laws, such as patent, trademark, or trade secret.)

[edit] Circulating Cinchona

The Cinchona tree is a very important metaphor for patents in a world of globalization and technology. The story begins in the late 1700's when Malaria broke out across countries. Leaders of the countries were in desperate need of a cure for the disease. When they discovered that the bark of a Cinchona tree could cure Malaria and other diseases, the search for the tree became a high priority. The bark of a Cinchona tree contained quinine. Quinine was the antidote to Malaria and other such diseases.

Countries soon panicked in a rush to try and find the Cinchona tree as soon as possible because it was said to be found only in the Amazon. Many European countries wanted control and distribution of the Cinchona tree because, it would help create medicine for their people. Producing this medicine would help the country's economy grow, and also help save their people from the horrible diseases.

The Story Goes

A man by the name of Dr. Bravo owned the Cinchona trees. However, he had died long before the frenzy over the trees began. No one knew who Dr. Bravo was during this time, therefore to everyone in search of the trees, the Cinchona tree was in the public domain for anyone to claim. In 1760, Jose Metis went in search of the tree for the Spanish King Charles III. However, no trees were found. Then in 1865, a man by the name of Mamani found the Cinchona tree and gathered its seeds. Mamani notified his friend Charles Ledger who had been searching for years for the tree. Charles Ledger was originally appointed by the British government to find the Cinchona tree many years prior, but he failed to do so. So when Mamani found the trees in 1865, Ledger had his chance at resurrecting his mission.

When Mamani and Ledger offered to sell the seeds to the British government, the government refused the seeds because they believed the seeds were deteriorated. The Dutch government praised the seeds and offered to purchase the seeds. Ledger sold the seeds to the Dutch, and the Dutch economy began to flourish. By 1930, the Dutch government controlled 95% of the world's quinine.

Anger over Cinchona Tree

South American Nations are angered that the Dutch have a monopoly over the quinine. The South American Nations are where the Cinchona tree was first found, and where they grow and prosper. However, other countries are controlling the production of the trees and using it to benefit their economy. The South American Nations are not receiving any benefits from producing the trees for the Dutch. They feel the Dutch and other countries have stolen the trees.

Power Relations

In 2002, Europe, U.S.A, and Japan had a combined average of 88.1% of all biotechnology patents filed at the European Patent Office. This is a very large percentage because North America does not even produce the world's top twenty most important crops.

Modern Day Example

Microsoft has accused Barnes and Nobles of infringing upon six patents at a July 2010 meeting. Google helped develop the Android technology and Microsoft is trying to sue Barnes and Nobles for using the android technology because it infringes upon six patents of Microsoft technology. Microsoft would like a Royalty fee for the technology used in Android, but Google and Barnes and Nobles refuse to pay.

Questions to Consider

  • If technology is so heavily consumed by the world, and every company is trying to improve the quality of technology, then do companies own technology or does the world own technology?
  • If Microsoft has six technology patents, and Android developed new technology, is Android at fault, or ahead of the game?

External Resources


[edit] Concept of Biopiracy

Definition: [17] This can even be seen in today's society with growing technologies. There is a lot of information available through different modes of technology, which may or may not be credited. With so much information, it becomes difficult to acknowledge an individual for his/her work. for example, someone might start a research study online, but someone else might come in and finish the product, and get full credit. This becomes an issue of whose intellectual property it was. This has its positive and negatives to it, since the research may have not concluded if someone else didn't come in and finish it, but then again, the individual who started the research didn't get credit for it. Intellectual property's are an issue that are arising with the increase in technology and information, and it becomes difficult to organize.

[edit] Example

  1. Opium vs. Morphine: Opium comes from the poppy plant and Morphine comes from raw opium. Morphine is primarily used to treat both acute and chronic severe pain. (ex. Labor pains) Negative uses are mainly addiction and drug abuse.Without restrictions on this drug, people could use this plant/opium for wrong reasons and cause danger to themselves. This goes against the universally accepted concept of common heritage of mankind because this plant can not be available to anyone for several reasons.
  2. Marijuana is a plant used as a drug which is both legal and illegal in different countries. This drug has several purposes, including both pharmaceutical purposes and pleasure purposes for others. This plant has restrictions on it in many parts in Canada because it is seen as a drug which is abused and used for wrong reasons. There is a lot of controversy about whether or not this drug should be restricted or open to everyone to use.
  3. The neem tree is a tree that has been used in India for over 2000 years for many pharmaceutical purposes. A company in the US is in a dispute with India because they are trying to buy this plants patent from India. The US wants to do further research to increase the availability by produces other products to benefit people. But India does not want to give them the rights to take this tree because they think it is there intellectual property. This creates issues between them about whose intellectual property it actually is.

[edit] Further Reading

[edit] Key Questions/Study Guide

  1. Think back to gleaning. If something is not being used any more, is it fair to let others prevail with it? Regardless if the original owner receives credit or not.
  2. Think back to the Cinchona Tree. Is it fair/right to claim the rewards of something that is not yours?
  3. What constitutes a copyrightable work, what constitutes originality, and who is considered to be an author?
  4. How far should protection of the public domain stretch? Can it accommodate the protection of traditional knowledge?

[edit] Links

[edit] Chapter 3: 'Telegraphic Adress "The Jungle," 166 Piccadilly': Taxidermy and the Spectacle of the Public Sphere

[edit] Primary Argument

Humans make culture, therefore culture is human. In turn, we have the right to culture, but is culture free?

[edit] Telling lies

“Is it not yet fully understood that taxidermic representation of objects stands upon a level with pictorial art?” Modern reader- taxidermy is that of art, but art that is somehow also exact science.

taxidermy artifacts-(stuffed animals) represent a revolution in the interaction between human and non-human, illustrate the liaison of science that forms the Victorian staging of the public and the private, and more than anything, they epitomize the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized.- all these dichotomies needed to be explored , and there was no better place to do so than by entering the highly ordered world of natural history museums or zoological gardens, controlled environments that characterized the virtues of classification and the promise of new knowledge.

wild animals resist falling under control- perhaps the least own able of “things” . Roman law: all untamed living creatures, regardless of their habitat were considered resnullius, or belonging to nobody. When captured, they became property of the captor- despite their unownable qualities, in colonization they were acquired owned and commodified as often as they were revered.

From bizarre furniture in Victorian era, to public wonder and awe in zoos, to digital jungle paintings, wild animals illustrate changes to the cultural landscape of enabled and disabled uses.


-theatricality and visuality is chapters focus- from nature to culture.

[edit] Big Game Hunting

Animals had to be hunted first- tigers bears emus etc went to hunt- empires dominance- boys become men etc “poachers” who invaded and stole

It is as if the act of slaying was a personal assertion of superiority and in addition it confirmed the rightfulness of imperial destiny. discusses cummings book about hunting and killing the giraffe- callousness and reverence.

Photgraphic Gun by etienne jules marey – shoot both the animals and hunt at the same time-gave animals eternal life commons terminology- it was a set for tragedy; that wild animals would never be in danger of depletion was unthinkable and therefore it was equally inconceivable to abstain from what was there for the taking.

To men like john adams, locke’s principles outlines a property politics where subsistence constituted the only right of natives to their land. By substituting the body bison with body cattle, the underlying rationale of the project was to replace savagery with civilization.

Hunting= profit seeking, extermination, but mainly for pursuit of science. killing was required for scientific enlightenment and knowledge. killed 28 musk ox to procure one young ox for zoo.

Only hunt elephant for tusks-leave the rest for waste.. waste refers directly to the animal not being seen by the proper spectator.

Without onlookers, the animal does not fulfil its promise of education and entertainment!!!

Left in the wild, the brox rhinoceroses is useless, a classic way of devaluating resources in the commons

Altering animals into furniture popular elements of interior decorating in Victorian era. (Feel bad for animal lovers/pita advocates in this chapter)

ex- Old fire screen, chairs in horse and tigers skin, elephant foot liquer case, tiger skull lamps- stylish interior to homes.

Appear in urban public space, by a way of display and conduct, a wild animal -once perhaps free but deemed wasted in that state- can fulfil is potential for visual use and become a truly public animal.

[edit] Hano, Chunee, and Joice Heath, Age 166

The Roman/British empire secured wild animals for various purposes of display and entertainment. Animal combats were popular in the 19th century London menageries- Exeter Exchange- one shilling would let you hold lion cubs, ride elephants and watch animals being fed.

-Material and rhetorical qualities –exotic animals were an important/essential part of Victorian life.- strict hierarchical distinctions- purpose to serve man (horse) vs dependent on man(pigs) Elephant shot 152 bullets –public got a chance to see him dead in his cage!

People will do anything for profit!! Commodify anything!!

Walter Potter made Sussex Museum of Curiosity an example of very different animals from Wards- a duckling with three eyes, two beaks four legs four wings.

Ward and Potter are worlds apart, but each staged their own representation of animals.

German Firm Carl Hagenbeck was foremost importer of animals but due to finances they branched out to displaying wild people

[edit] Metropolitan Jungles

Henri Rosseau- made a play about Wards expeditions- A Visit to the 1889 exhibition fantastic travelling device, a magical carpet ride to the “country of dreams”

The attraction for the museum (Jardin des plantes) was placing the foreign in the visitors reach.

Betes sauvages-illustrated book of animals in museum. Kiplings “the jungle book” 1899

World fairs, exhibitions natural history museums, and zoos interacted and shaped the public perception of colonialism and the exotic. The urban identity of these new public institutions even reinforces their power of interpretive hegemony.---

The process of urbanization itself, the way in which the various spheres of public and private were controlled by buildings, both in terms of the layout of the home and the layout of public buildings and parks, structured the expectations of people and their behaviour in these respective domains. It also revolves around forms of theatricality, setting the stage for public interaction—on the street, at the cafe, in the museum, and at the zoo.

Olmstead- ‘men must come together, and be must be seen coming together- park regulated coming together.-

Design of these new public spaces facilitates the paradigmatic rise of the visual- watching others and being watched in return

Public as a problem- verge of becoming agitated and aggressive –potential stampede of uncontrollable Chunee- a crowd that can be so easily transformed into a dangerous mob on the streets could, once moved away from the streets to indoors (or even the gated outdoors, as in the case of zoos), be subjected both to the controlling gaze of others and to the ways of seeing imposed by architecture and landscape.

Ward-universal interest in the animal kingdom displayed by all classes of society, whether in the select few who gain admission of the Sunday, or the masses of the plebian Monday.

Taxidermy- control over exotic/wild.

Rousseau’s most famous jungle painting-hungry lion throws itself on the antelope -As if all of our preconceived notions of the jungle come to life in these paintings, but makes them aware of the unauthentic and surreal they are.

[edit] Copyfraud

COPYFRAUD: winter 2005, Tate Modern’s jungles in Paris, the first U.K exhibit of Rousseau’s jungle painting in 85 years. –tiger in a tropical storm (surprise!)The equatorial jungle (1909) tropical forest with monkeys (1910)

The national gallery in London may physically control and own tiger in a tropical storm but that ownership alone does not allow them free rein to do as they please with Rousseau’s canvas. Whereas a private owner can restrict access to a painting or prevent it all together, the role of the museum is to hold objects and art in trust, so that public can view and enjoy collections without counterproductive restrictions.

Digitization changes this web of relationships altogether. His paintings are still one-of-a-kind objects in a museum or private collection; at the same time they lead a prosperous second life on the Internet by way of museum websites. Over 15 million people a year visit the website for New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, where only 4.5 visit the actual museum. The New Getty Museum in Los Angeles receives around 10.5 million people in website compared to 1.2 visits. Users spend 12-15 minutes on metmuseum and 9.5 on getty.-Our collective memory is fickle as well as short.

Photocopier once destabilized not only preconceived notions of what technology was capable of doing, but also helped destabilize the idea of art itself.

!!!Xerox had at once revolutionized the technology of reproduction, but even more significantly, set off a new respectlessness, democratization if you will, in the relationship between producers and consumers!!! The photocopying era presaged the era of digitization; we now enter a new phase in the history of copying and in the understanding of what we mean by an original and a copy in art. Recent controversy illustrates the increasing convergence between art and technology, as well as the challenges concerning the ethics of use that inevitably follow from that connection.

Case on pg.102 artist Joy Garnet vs Susan Meislas on “Molotov Man” cocktail painting. Lawyers- the painting went online in different contexts.

The museum is online-could look at Rousseau’s paintings in own home.

What constitutes fair use of someone’s copyright? Are there limits to what we should do with images? !!copyright lasts 70 years after the authors creator!!

Copyfraud: falsely claiming a copyright on works in the public domain.

Ward’s abandoned rhinoceros patent wasn’t constituted and was fabricated, he made it look like there was.- Ward understood perfectly how essential it was to use intellectual property rights to create an illusion of proprietorship.

Does not give museums a blanket go-ahead to slap a copyright notice on works that have reverted to the public domain. We have to accept their right to limit access to artwork if such restrictions deemed necessary, and have faith in their discretion to exercise caution when it comes to suitable uses of the paintings or objects in the media; we also have to respect their wishes to prevent substandard reproductions from flooding the market.

Museums are extremely dependent on the revenues of merchandising; together with ticket sales, membership fees, and fundraising, retail and shop earnings are major revenues.

Question before the court was whether it was possible to copyright colour transparencies of public domain paintings. Case on pg.106.

Anyone for who would like to illustrate a book will encounter copyfraud claims. Anyone who tries to put together a bundle of texts for teaching purposes will see the copyright sign in places where it has no business to be. We all sign contracts and agree to licenses because we dread the consequences of uses that may be perfectly legitimate. We are conditioned to think that ‘every work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise” we always begin on the defensive.- if you are not vigilant or easily intimidated you might end up paying for access to works that are in the public domain.- museums etc are among these offenders.

Show that not only wild animals functioned as a ‘ornamental’ resource in the 19th century but how such status profoundly related to the staging of imperial power.

Of importance is the tension between public aspirations and private rights that collide in the establishement of new public spaces, reinforcing the complexities of an emerging culture of display. The steady increase of deception in order to claim intellectual property rights.

As we enter an era of digitization, the taxidermy mount becomes the digital thumbnail and we find ourselves in a full blown period of copyfraud and an invasive permission culture.

Nothing other than the telling of lies?!

[edit] Critiques

[edit] Further Reading

Sussex Museum: Walter Potter Free Culture: The Nature of Future Creativity By Lawrence Lessig

[edit] Key Questions/Study Guide

[edit] Chapter 4: 'I Am Two Mowglis': Kipling, Disney, and a Lesson in How To Use (and Abuse) the Public Domain

[edit] Primary Argument

Copyright Law and Trademark is restricting our uses of culture and commodifying culture within society. Copyright law was originally intended to promote and protect creativity and was a reward for innovation. Now, coupled with the Copright Term Extension Act (CTEA) and Trademark Law it is preventing culture from entering into the public domain. This has resulted in culture becoming moments of consumption rather than moments of creation. The right to culture we once took for granted has now become a restricted freedom for consumers. Our ability to express ourselves has becomed constrained through the overlapping of copyright and trademark laws. Iconic signifiers which belong to the commons are now protected underneath the copyright regime and are considered "property" of major corporations. This is silencing consumers freedom of speech, as we are no longer allowed to use these culturally rich icons.

[edit] Copright and Trademark Law

Copyright Law was originally intended to serve as a reward for authors who developed creative works. It served as a safety mechanism to ensure the work could not be stolen by others and that the author maintained exlusive rights to that work. Ultimately, the aim of copyright laws was to promote and protect intellectual property. It is important to note, that copyright originally allowed the author to have control of their intellectual property for a limited amount of time before the work was able to fall into the public domain. Since the creation of the Copyright Terms Extension Act (CTEA)in 1998 intellectual property is now prevented from falling into the public domain. The CTEA extends the copyright to 75 years after the authors death. The CTEA is also coupled with Trademark Law which is inherently perpetual. Trademark Law allows authors to protect characters within their work from being replicated without their permission in the public sphere. Essentially it means, that even if a character is in the public domain in terms of copyright, its parallel protection as a trademark overrides its public domain status and only further limits our uses. The rationale behind trademark law is that it protects consumers from confusion as it limits imitations of the brand. Consumers know who that character is, who they are associated with, that they are purchasing a legitimate brand and who the source of the product is. Trademark law also allows the company to maintain control of their reputation and prohibits "defamation of brand". The corporation is able to govern who their product is affiliated with and exactly what message they are conveying.

[edit] The Right to Fair Use

The principle of fair use acts as a safety mechanism whereby the public is allowed to interact with cultural works during ongoing copyright. This principle acknowledges at some level, that consumers have rights and allows consumers to use the texts without permission from the author. There are certain guidelines which demonstrate and allow the fair use principle to apply. This provision allows users to interact with texts for the purposes of: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. The princple of fair use ensures we do not put intertextual dialogue on hold for the time frame of the copyright. In order to determine whether or not use is fair the statue provides the following guidelines to aid courts in matters of dispute:

  1. The purpose and character of the use (commercial or non-profit purposes)
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work

These guidelines allow courts to decide whether use is fair or if the user is violating copyright law [18].

Disney Orgy An Example of Parody
Disney Orgy An Example of Parody
[edit] Examples

The following picture is an instance of fair use, as the creator took images of trademarked Disney characters and used them to create a new text which is classified as a parody. Disney attempted to sue the creator of this work for "defamation of brand", as the text clearly mocks and attempts to destroy the reputation of Disney. After battling it out in the courts, the decision was made that the text was based on parody and Disney lost the case. This was a major milestone in acknowledging that consumers hold rights.

[edit] A Permission Culture & Reading-Writing Process

[edit] Reading-Writing Process

Hemmungs Wirten argues that we live in a society based around the philosophy of a "permission culture". Nothing is ever new, culture is created through an ongoing process of appropriation or otherwise known as intertextuality. In order write new works and create new texts, we must read and learn. Heummungs Wirten (2008) argues, "cultural texts are not created out of thin air; they come about through an ongoing process of appropriation whereby access to older texts is needed in order to create new ones" (p. 137) [19]. Unforuntately, copyright and trademark laws interrupt this process of learning and proclaims that creators cannot base their "new works" on old texts from which they gained knowledge and were inspired by. Essentially, copyright and trademark laws professes that we are forbidden to learn from texts and apply this new knowledge. "Learning is not merely the treasuring up of words in the memory; it is through thinking that the thoughts of others are seized, and this after-thinking is real learning" (Heummungs Wirten, p. 136, 2008)[20].

[edit] Examples

Even when we believe texts are genuinely innovative we are often unaware of the intertexuality evident in the works. Take for instance, Avatar. The film was revered as a innovative and awe-inspiring, although its plot is eerily similar to that of the legendary folk story Pocahontas and its graphics resemble the video game World of Warcraft.

World of Warcraft vs Avatar Comparison
World of Warcraft vs Avatar Comparison
[edit] Permission Culture

In modern day society, blatant intertextuality is forbidden as it infringes on copyright and trademark laws, which therefore results in what Hemmungs Wirten terms a "permission culture". Creators can only create on the basis that they gather permission from the works which inspired them, otherwise their creations will never be allowed enter the public domain. This proliferation of a permission culture has come at the cost of consumers and creators in two ways: first, locating and securing rights from a copyright owner is an immense financial burden for creators and a nigthmarishly long process. Second, the public is now limited in their freedom of speech. We must now ask permission in order to use works which should be readily available for us to use in whichever way we please. In this sense, our use of culture is restricted and we are limited to few things we can actually call "culture" (texts that we are free to interact with). Our culture is dwindling in modern day society and it is not absurd to say that our culture was more rich in the era's that were based on oral communication, where story telling was the primary distribution of culture. Take for instance the folk tale of Pocahontas, this is a true story and a part of our heritage although, we are not allowed to interact with it because the story is property of Disney under copyright law and the animated character Pocahontas is protected by trademark laws. The public domain no longer cultivates the creation of culture but rather, fosters a competitive environment based strictly on economics. The desire to publish works in order to grant them entry into the public domain is no longer based on the desire to create culture, but rather the monetary value in it. This creates a hostile public domain where it is becoming increasingly difficult to create "new" pieces of culture as the market is aggresively policed by major corporations.

[edit] Libraries and Copyright Law

Few institutions have been as vocal in defending the public domain as libraries, since their very survival is based on the foundation of a rich public domain. Libraries have collectively joined forces in resistance to the copyright regime and articulate their support for a healthy domain [21]. Libraries have the capacity to link aspects of production with aspects of consumption, further reaffirming the reading-writing process. Libraries are the keeper's of culture and copyright regime threatens their livelihood. Librarians and archivists have long been the stewards of our cultural history. The passage of the CTEA keeps creative works from librarians and archivists who stand ready to preserve them all, not just a favoured few [22]. The CTEA unnecessarily extends protection for works that are worth next to nothing commercially, but that count for enormous value in terms of public use therefore, thwarting the purpose of libraries[23]. While libraries belong to a group of institutions that have always enjoyed a special standing and leeway in terms of enabling use, whether defined under the fair use principle or not. The CTEA provided an exemption clause for libraries allowing them access to a limited group of works for the last twenty years of the work's copyright protection term [24]. Although, "friends of the court" argue that this clause is insignificant because disputes of copyright are decided on a case-by-case basis and therefore, the fair use principle is unreliable. The vagueness surrounding the fair use principle negates its initial goal to promote creativity and actually inhibits creativity. The ambiguous fair use provisions are causing consumers to become afraid of using copyrighted texts for reasons that would be considered allowable under the Copyright Act. The copyright framework is indirectly hindering the development of culture and is stifling the creative process despite its initial goals to promote it. This Act is restraining the development of a rich culture and preventing works from ever entering into the public domain.

[edit] Bullies in the Copyright Domain

Chapter four touches base upon Walt Disney and characterizes them as “bullies” in the copyright arena, as they have been known to aggressively police the use of their characters and content. Hemmungs Wirten (2008) argues, that Disney is the killer of creativity and simultaneously, the very embodiement of it [25]. If an individual were to use Disney's material in a way which does not fall under the fair use provisions (and in some cases even if they do abide by the fair use principle, as seen in the "Disney Orgy" example), they would immediately be confronted with a lawsuit. Authorless tales more or less always in the public domain (stories of beautiful princesses, wicked stepmothers and gallant knights) were retold and remobilized through centuries without there ever being a remote possibility of locating an individual originator somewhere [26]. Disney has managed to limit the uses of traditionally free folk stories and fairy tales by removing them from the public domain and threatening litigation to anyone whom so much as looks at their version [27]. The public domain is diminishing at an uncontrollable rate due to villains in the industry which embody Disney ideologies and are stripping society of our culture. Disney has been successful in overlapping intellectual property rights, trademark law and competition law to converge in a way that makes it extremely difficult to determine the limits of the laws respective protective framework [28] Corporations are blind-sighted by the economic benefits of copyrighting and overlook the fact that their success is a direct result of the public domain. Hemmungs Wirten (2008) argues that Disney’s success would have never occurred if the misdirected and overzealous intellectual property protections, with which the Disney of today has become synonymous with, had been in force at the time Walt started out [29]. It is important to note, that not all companies embody the Disney ideology in regards to copyright, rather than police their works some organizations accept and even encourage others to use their products and expand upon their stories. This is a strategic way for corporations to build their brand, spread awareness and gain support from the fan community.

[edit] Examples

Companies that do not embody the Disney ideology and promote their works within the public domain have yielded great success. The public domain is the perfect environment for copyright owners to promote their works by encouraging consumers to use their products and expand upon their stories. This is a strategic way for corporations to build upon their brand, spread awareness and gain support from the fan community. The creator of Star Wars, George Lucas, holds an annual contest for the creators of fan fiction (Atom Productions, 2011). George Lucas encourages his fan community to interact with his texts to create “new” works in which the winner is awarded a cash prize [30]. The contest creates an excellent opportunity for the creative process to flourish and encourages individuals to engage in the original work. This contest justifies the intertextuality of content and strengthens the rights of consumers to actively interact with texts. George Lucas and the Star Wars series has flourished due to the participation of the fan community and is a clear example how the public domain is able to yield brand success.

[edit] Critiques & Something To Think About

[edit] International Copyright Law

Another aspect of copyright laws which reinforces its contradictory nature is that it is different in every country and even differs state to state. There is no universal definition of what copyright law entails and the violations for copyright law are universally different. This means that if the same country was suing another company or individual in different states or country, it is possible to win the lawsuit in one place, and lose in another. One aspect of the law, for example, and how it differs in different places is that the extension of U.S copyright terms it the death of the creator plus 75 years, whereas in Canada it’s only 50 years. An important point which Professor Bradley poses in his article is whether or not this is delaying the entry of work into the public domain for too long of a period? The confusing nature is exemplified through the Nokia vs. Apple lawsuit which is demonstrated in the link section below. The companies are suing each other for numerous reasons in many places and justifies not only the contradictory definition of copyright, but also how confusing the process behind the reinforcement and protection of it can be. It adds enormous confusion internally and worldwide!

[edit] Digitization

Through copyright debate, we - try to - understand the mass confusion and contemporary permission culture that was causally generated. It is noted that the rules and regulations of the game are not entirely set in stone as outcomes of disputes vary from case-to-case. The introduction of digitization has escalated the chaos several steps further. Digitization entails digital copies of every form of text - literary, sound, image, video - that can be shared in the virtual realm. Through peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing, users can openly transfer files online to consume as well as modify cultural texts with no limitations - or monetary charges. The digital world opens a new realm of possibility, which will be very hard to keep regulated. In such a vast web of ongoing consumption and modification, texts can be altered entirely and reproduced for the masses. Contemporary consumers are becoming increasingly savvy in terms of illegal downloading - i.e. torrents - and have no signs of slowing down the increased circulation that digitization has brought forth. Through digitization, retribution for violation will become increasingly difficult for those in power, ultimately allowing consumers a chance to be in the driver's seat.

[edit] Further Reading

Mappying the Digitial Public Domain: Threats and Opportunities

Copyright Law

Free Culture: The Nature of Future Creativity By: Lawrence, L (2004)

Culture, Creativity & Copyright By: Simon, D (2011)

Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lockdown Culture and Control Creativity, By: Lawrence, L 2004)

The Copyleft Movement: Creative Commons Licensing, By: Broussard, S (2007)

Flexible Remedies as a Means to Counteract Failuers in Copyright Law, By: Afori, O (2011)

[edit] Key Questions/ Study Guide

  1. Do corporations benefit from the public domain?
  2. Is it in the best interest of corporations to encourage the public domain or restrict it?
  3. Is culture a commercial product or a common good?

[edit] Links

Apple vs. Nokia This exemplifies the idea that there is no clear path as to what constitutes copyright infringement. The jurisdiction varies from country to country, and even state-to-state.

2011 "George Lucas Selects" This video shows George Lucas' encouragement for fans to write their own ideas which relate to Star Wars. This is much like how Star Trek fans were provided the opportunity to write their own scripts within the Star Trek plot. Some of the fan-fiction presented were actually used in Star Trek Next Generation

[edit] Conclusions

Culture is the fabric of society that surrounds us and simultaneously defines us. The historical review of gleaning provides a critical analysis on the current structure public domain and urban commons. In modern day society we have built hypothetical fences which enclose our culture and restrict our activities (what was once an open field for all to roam, is now fenced off land to each is their own). The gleaners utilized left over remains from crops. Other countries have flourished in economic growth on the basis of another country's resources. The matter comes down to "who owns it." No matter who had it first, or who owns it now, discrepancies will always be in place. Who ever flourishes the most will be under attack. Some will reap the benefits, while others scold the attempts. No matter what, it is part of our culture to steal, hide, alter, flourish, and prevail.

The Copyright Act prioritizes economic interests over the interests of consumers and this is directly affecting the quality of our culture. The hypercommodification of culture coupled with the ambiguity of the provisions within the Copyright Act is discouraging authors and users to actively engage with texts and is an oversight which is extremely detrimental to society as a whole [31]. Despite the Act's provisions, appropriation is a necessary component for the creation of new works. While the repercussions of this Act may not be recognizable today, the actions of villains within the domain (such as Disney) will become shockingly apparent when the public domain becomes a deserted and barren arena containing exhausted content.

[edit] More Publications From The Author

Terms of Use: Negotiating the Jungle of the Intellectual Commons (forthcoming, University of Toronto Press, September 2008).

No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 2004).

“’Don’t Fence Me In’: Travels in the Public Domain ,” New Directions in Copyright Law, vol 6. Ed. Fiona Macmillan. (London: Edward Elgar, 2007).

“The Global Market 1970-2000: Producers,” Blackwell Companion to the History of the Book. Eds. Simon Eliot and Jonathan Rose (London: Blackwells, 2007).

“Litteraturens Lag: att forska om upphovsrätt (tvärvetenskapligt).” Tidskrift för Litteraturvetenskap 3-4, 2006.

“Out of Sight and Out of Mind: On the Cultural Hegemony of Intellectual Property (Critique).” Cultural Studies 2-3, 2006.

“Life, Liberty, and the Relentless Pursuit of Ownership: The ‘Americanization’ of Intellectual Property Rights," American Studies in Scandinavia, vol 35, no 2, Fall 2003.

Global Infatuation: Explorations in Transnational Publishing and Texts. The Case of Harlequin Enterprises and Sweden (Uppsala: Publications from the Section for Sociology of Literature at the Department of Literature, Uppsala University, 38, 1998).

[edit] Notes and References

  1. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  2. MacEachern, A (2009). Who Owns the Jungle. University Affairs Retrieved from: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/who-owns-the-jungle.aspx
  3. MacEachern, A (2009). Who Owns the Jungle. University Affairs Retrieved from: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/who-owns-the-jungle.aspx
  4. MacEachern, A (2009). Who Owns the Jungle. University Affairs Retrieved from: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/who-owns-the-jungle.aspx
  5. MacEachern, A (2009). Who Owns the Jungle. University Affairs Retrieved from: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/who-owns-the-jungle.aspx
  6. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  7. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  8. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6704-gleaning-of-the-fields
  9. http://www.urbanministry.org/
  10. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  11. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  12. Humphreys, L. (2010) Mobile social networks and urban public space. New Media & Society, 12(5), 763-778. doi:10.1177/1461444809349578
  13. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  14. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  15. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. Naomi Klein
  16. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  17. The use of wild plants by international companies to develop medicines, without recompensing the countries from which they are taken.
  18. Government of Canada (2011). Canadian Copyright Law. Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/ccl/aboutCopyright.html
  19. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  20. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  21. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  22. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  23. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  24. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  25. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  26. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  27. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  28. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  29. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  30. http://www.fanfiction.net/s/59656/1/The_Contest
  31. Hemmungs, W. E. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the intellectual commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Personal tools
Bookmark and Share