Journal articles on the topic 'Right of property'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Right of property.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Right of property.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Lindenbergh, Siewert D. "Enforcing the Right to Property Properly." Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 17, no. 1 (March 2010): 48–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1023263x1001700104.
Full text
2
Moharana, Kshirod Kumar, and Dr Laxmikanta Das. "Intellectual Property Right for Making in India: A Legal Right." International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development Volume-2, Issue-5 (August 31, 2018): 1375–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.31142/ijtsrd17018.
Full text
3
Pyatkov, Dmitry. "Prospects of Real Rights: Public Property vs. Unified Property Right." Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, no. 4 (December 10, 2017): 128–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2017.4.128.143.
Full text
4
Essert, Christopher. "Property in Licences and the Law of Things." McGill Law Journal 59, no. 3 (May 21, 2014): 559–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1025139ar.
Full textAbstract:
A theoretical account of property rights needs to identify what, if anything, is distinctive about property rights as opposed to other sorts of rights; what makes them the sorts of rights that they are. An important and prominent account of the distinctiveness of property rights claims that they are rights to things. I argue against this view: I show that a government-issued licence (to fish or to drive a taxi or to operate a radio station, say) is not a right to a thing but should nevertheless count as a property right. I consider two different arguments for this rights-to-things view: one is based on the Hohfeldian structure of property rights, and one relies on the importance of information costs in the law of property. While each of these arguments teaches us important lessons about property, none can properly support the conclusion that property is rights to things. I suggest that abandoning the rights-to-things view of property can lead to important insights into property theory more generally.
5
Lianos, Ioannis. "Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Is the Property Rights’ Approach Right?" Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 8 (2006): 153–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/152888712802731160.
Full textAbstract:
The intersection between competition law and intellectual property has been a contentious issue since the very beginnings of European Communities (EC) competition law. Both intellectual property and competition law pursue the aim of enhancing economic welfare and innovation, but their direct objectives seem to be in conflict. Whereas intellectual property focuses on the reward of inventive effort and the inventor’s incentives to innovate by conferring an exclusive right on the use of the invention, competition law emphasises the dissemination of innovation by ensuring diffusion and access.
6
Lianos, Ioannis. "Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Is the Property Rights’ Approach Right?" Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 8 (2006): 153–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1528887000004705.
Full textAbstract:
The intersection between competition law and intellectual property has been a contentious issue since the very beginnings of European Communities (EC) competition law. Both intellectual property and competition law pursue the aim of enhancing economic welfare and innovation, but their direct objectives seem to be in conflict. Whereas intellectual property focuses on the reward of inventive effort and the inventor’s incentives to innovate by conferring an exclusive right on the use of the invention, competition law emphasises the dissemination of innovation by ensuring diffusion and access.
7
OKSANIUK, Oleh. "Property rights of the spouses: concept and content." Economics. Finances. Law 2/2024, no. - (February 29, 2024): 111–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.37634/efp.2024.2.23.
Full textAbstract:
In the paper the property rights of spouses are studied, their specific features are identified, as well as the features of individual property rights of spouses. On the basis of the conducted scientific research, the author came to the conclusion that the property rights of spouses are those powers of a property nature, which are defined by family legislation or other sources of family law, arise in connection with the state registration of marriage and can be exercised by the spouses or one of them as bearers of these rights; rights that arise in connection with the exercise of the right of joint ownership of the property of the spouses or the right of personal private ownership of the property of one of the spouses or from alimony obligations of the other spouse. The paper highlights the general and special features of property rights of spouses, including that can be alienated in a contractual manner (regarding rights to proper property), inalienability and personal character (regarding the right to maintenance). The property rights of spouses include: property rights of spouses arising from the right of personal private ownership of certain property, property rights of spouses arising from the right of joint ownership of property acquired during marriage, the right of one of the spouses to enter into an agreement with the other person regarding the disposal of their a share of the right of joint co-ownership of the spouses in the case of its determination and allocation in kind or determination of the procedure for using joint property, the right of the spouses to divide the property that is the object of the right of joint co-ownership, as well as to determine the methods and procedure for dividing the corresponding property, the right to dispose of joint property and determine its legal regime after the death of one of the spouses and both of them by concluding a will of the spouses, the right to maintenance in the event that the disabled spouse needs financial assistance, the right to maintenance of the wife during pregnancy, the right to maintenance of one of the spouses with whom the child lives, the right to determine the methods of providing maintenance to one of the spouses.
8
Kim, Annette M. "A market without the 'right' property rights." Economics of Transition 12, no. 2 (June 2004): 275–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0967-0750.2004.00179.x.
Full text
9
Riha, Tomas J. F. "Right to property." International Journal of Social Economics 27, no. 12 (December 2000): 1148–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03068290010352966.
Full text
10
Jiang, Zhigang. "Meta-property right, derived property right and right of modification of biogenetic resources." Biodiversity Science 13, no. 4 (2005): 363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1360/biodiv.050084.
Full text
11
Aboud, Malcolm. "Athletes as Objects of Property: A Kantian Rethinking of Flood v. Kuhn." Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 26, no. 2 (July 2013): 471–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0841820900006159.
Full textAbstract:
In the 1972 case Flood v. Kuhn, St. Louis Cardinals outfielder Kurt Flood petitioned to the United States Supreme Court arguing that professional baseball’s century-old reserve system was illegal. In the case, which was ultimately unsuccessful but led to the establishment of modern free agency, Flood argued that by granting teams the perpetual right to renew players’ contracts and the right to unilaterally trade players to other teams, the reserve system treated him as “a piece of property to be bought and sold” and reduced him to a “well-paid slave”. In this paper, I justify Flood’s claim by appeal to a Kantian division of rights. I argue for a Kantian conception of rights under which property rights are properly defined as rights in rem in external objects; on the basis that the right a team holds in a ballplayer under the reserve system is alienable and holds against all the world, I argue that it is a right in rem and accordingly constitutes a property right under Kant’s view. I then argue that the reserve system treats the player as a slave by constraining his purposiveness such as to violate a Kantian conception of the innate right of humanity. On this basis I argue that Flood was right to conclude that the reserve system treats the player as an object of property akin to a slave.
12
Mack, Eric. "THE NATURAL RIGHT OF PROPERTY." Social Philosophy and Policy 27, no. 1 (January 2010): 53–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0265052509990033.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe two main theses of “The Natural Right of Property” are: (i) that persons possess an original, non-acquired right not to be precluded from making extra-personal material their own (or from exercising discretionary control over what they have made their own); and (ii) that this right can and does take the form of a right that others abide by the rules of a (justifiable) practice of property which facilitates persons making extra-personal material their own (and exercising discretionary control over what they have made their own). I articulate some of the good reasons we have to affirm persons' possession of an original, non-acquired right of self-ownership and argue that the same good reasons support the ascription to persons of a natural right of property. I contrast an “inherent feature” conception of the actions through which (initial) rights over extra-personal objects arise with a “practice” conception of (initial) entitlement-generating actions. I argue that the fact that the natural right to property can and does take the form of persons' rights that others abide by the rules of a (justifiable) practice of property explains how there are many instances of (initial) entitlement generation which are not plausibly explained by those wed to the inherent feature conception of entitlement-generating actions and why there is a strong conventional dimension in the procedures through which persons acquire (initial) property rights.
13
Bright, Susan, and Ben McFarlane. "PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS." Cambridge Law Journal 64, no. 2 (July 7, 2005): 449–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197305006926.
Full textAbstract:
THIS article focuses on a particular aspect of the operation of proprietary estoppel: it asks when a proprietary estoppel claim will give rise to a property right. The inquiry proceeds on the linked assumptions that proprietary estoppel is a means of acquiring rights and that rights thereby arising take effect immediately, without the need for any court order. Like any other means of acquiring rights, proprietary estoppel can give rise either to personal rights or to property rights: in some cases the estoppel claimant is acknowledged to have a personal right (e.g. to damages or a licence to use land); in others a property right (e.g. a lien; an easement; a lease; or a freehold). The central argument of this article is that proprietary estoppel should give rise to a property right only if that is necessary to protect the claimant’s reasonable reliance. Where a personal right gives sufficient protection that will have to do, whatever the claimant may have been promised or expected; this may well mean that the circumstances in which a property right arises are more narrow than has been thought.
14
Stern, Simon. "From Author's Right to Property Right." University of Toronto Law Journal 62, no. 1 (January 2012): 29–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/utlj.62.1.29.
Full text
15
Stern, Simon. "From author’s right to property right." University of Toronto Law Journal 62, no. 1 (2012): 29–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/tlj.2012.0004.
Full text
16
Ristik, Jelena. "Right To Property: From Magna Carta To The European Convention On Human Rights." SEEU Review 11, no. 1 (December 1, 2015): 145–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/seeur-2015-0018.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Property rights are integral part of the freedom and prosperity of every person, although their centrality has often been misprized and their provenance was doubted. Yet, traces of their origin can be found in Magna Carta, signed by the King of England in 1215. It was a turning point in human rights. Namely, it enumerates what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among them was also the right of all free citizens to own and inherit property. The European Convention on Human Rights was heavily influenced by British legal traditions, including Magna Carta. Among other rights, it also guaranties the right to property as a human right. Moreover, the protection of property rights has been extended to intellectual property rights as well. Namely, the European Court of Human Rights has provided protection of intellectual property rights through the adoption of decisions that interpret the right to property, in relation to intellectual property protection claims. It has extended the human rights protection of property to the mere application for registration of the trade mark. This paper has placed its focus on the development and treatment of the right to property starting from Magna Carta to the European Convention on Human Rights, as modern version of Magna Carta. In this sense, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and its role and approach in the protection of the right to property will be examined as well.
17
Ullah, Sana, Abzahir Khan, and Sohail Anwar. "فقہ اسلامی اور مغربی قانون کی روشنی میں حقوق دانش کے قوانین کاتحقیقی مطالعہ." Journal of Islamic and Religious Studies 3, no. 2 (February 10, 2020): 97–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.36476/jirs.3:2.12.2018.06.
Full textAbstract:
Islam always emphasizes to use legal ways and means of earning. In contrary the legal and illegal sources of income have been explained in detail. The “Right of invention” is one of the most discussed issues among the Islamic Jurists. This right is related to the intellectual skills and capabilities of people. However, internationally intellectual property is a known concept that associates with right of publication, right of trademark, patent and right of goodwill et cetera. However, research must be conducted on inquiring rights of intellectual property in Islamic Sharia and comparison of these rights with those in Western laws. In this paper the historical review of the intellectual properly has been presented. Similarly, those various types and concerned ruling have been discussed in contrast with the Islamic and western law on descriptive research methods.
18
ugli, Akmalkhonov Bosithon Azizkhon. "LEGAL ISSUES OF PROTECTION OF PROPERTY LAW AS A HUMAN RIGHT IN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LAW." International Journal of Law And Criminology 4, no. 7 (July 4, 2024): 24–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.37547/ijlc/volume04issue07-05.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the legal issues surrounding the protection of property rights as a fundamental human right under international public law. It traces the historical development of property rights, analyzes key international legal instruments and court cases that have defined and interpreted this right, and explores challenges in balancing private property rights with public interests and state sovereignty. The article concludes that while property rights are well-established as a human right, their scope and implementation continue to evolve through international legal mechanisms.
19
KHOMENKO, Mykhailo M., Anatoliy V. KOSTRUBA, and Oleksii O. KOT. "Protection of Non-Property Right." Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 10, no. 3 (June 30, 2019): 794. http://dx.doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v10.3(41).14.
Full textAbstract:
In the modern world, the significance of non-property right is very high because they are preconditions of providing the real freedom of ownership, freedom of agreement, freedom of entrepreneurship and all other rights in the material sphere of society. The article studies characteristic features of personal non-property rights of individuals. The notion of personal non-property rights of individuals has been formulated taking into account the features of this group of subjective civil rights, as well as their purpose. The main issues to be addressed in the study are the clarification of the specifics (features) of the object of protection, as well as the peculiarities of the protection of the named rights, the jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional forms of protection of personal non-property rights that ensure the natural existence of an individual. In the article, the notions of personal non-material benefit and personal non-property right have been formulated; the personal non-property rights, which provide the natural existence of an individual who is the object of protection, have been characterised in details; propositions regarding addressing certain legislative and practical gaps and contradictions have been presented. Also, the specific features and concepts of the protection of personal non-property rights that provide the natural existence of an individual have been determined.
20
Shabalin, Andrii. "The history of the development of civil procedural law of Ukraine on judicial protection of the property legal right to land." Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property, no. 6 (June 16, 2021): 147–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.33731/62020.234066.
Full textAbstract:
Keywords: civil procedural protection, court, violation of private property rights toland, civil procedure
The article is devoted to the study of the historical and legal aspects of the judicial procedure for theprotection of property rights to land in Ukrainian legislation. The author investigates themain stages of legal protection of property legal rights to land, in each historical periodits own characteristics of the aforementioned procedure for the protection of the correspondingproperty right are determined. Considerable attention is paid to the issues ofthe peculiarities of legal regulation and judicial procedure for the protection of propertylegal rights to land. In this scientific article, the author pays considerable attention to thedevelopment of judicial protection of legal property rights to land in the historical periodof the emergence of the independent state of Ukraine (1917−1918 yy). The author of thearticle writes that during this period the legal right to land received significant development:the land plot could be inherited, the right to rent the land could also be inherited.The procedure for the judicial protection of the legal right to land had no legal peculiarities.The author describes that during the Soviet period of Ukraine's existence, there was no legal property right to land. Only the state could have legal property rights to land.This means that the courts did not protect the private property legal right to land. Onlywhen Ukraine became an independent state did a private property legal right to landemerge. During this historical period, a significant number of legal instruments for theprotection of proprietary legal rights to land appeared in the legislation of independentUkraine. The property legal right to land was protected by the court. It is the judicialprotection of the property legal right to land that is democratic and meets the Europeandemocratic standards for the protection of property rights. The modern features of thegenesis of legal protection of property legal rights to land, which are protected by thecourt in the civil procedure of Ukraine, have been investigated. The author has createdand described new stages in the development of civil procedural protection of legal propertyrights to land.
21
Alsubuh, Riyad, and Towfic Shomar. "Property between Natural and Acquired Right." Jordan Journal of Social Sciences 15, no. 2 (September 29, 2022): 141–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.35516/jjss.v15i2.486.
Full textAbstract:
The main objective of this study is to discuss the bases of why some philosophers assume that property is an essential part of human rights based on accepting it as a “natural” right, and to assess the credibility of such an assumption. In order to deal with such problematic issue, we contrast John Locke and Georg Hegel with Friedrich Engels; Locke posited that privet property right is part of natural rights, while Hegel claimed that privet property is a right granted by the state. In contrast, Engels thought that the origin of property, during the early stages of humanity, was that of communal or public property, which later changed to privet property due to the division of labour and the emergence of class societies and class straggle. The study draws a comparison between Hegel and Engels on several points: family, society, social contract, and the state. The study concluded that property, be it privet or public, is not a right but a means for a right, because it is based on the ability to be transferred and exchanged, whilst the natural right ought to be nun-transferable. The only right the state have is to put forward policies of property that would not inflect the natural origin of human rights.
22
Ivliev, P. V., and S. A. Trenina. "Property and the right of ownership. Modern problems of property rights protection." Аграрное и земельное право, no. 7 (2022): 15–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.47643/1815-1329_2022_7_15.
Full text
23
Berzin, Pavlo Serhiiovych, Ruslan Anatoliiovych Volynets, and Mykhailo Mykhailovych Khomenko. "The Right to Property and Property Rights as Objects of Possession, which is Committed by the Abuse of an Official by his Official Position (Part 2 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)." Herald of the Association of Criminal Law of Ukraine 1, no. 15 (August 6, 2021): 126–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.21564/2311-9640.2021.15.235700.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyzes the criminal and civil understanding of the concepts of "foreign property", "right to property" and "property law". Different meanings of these concepts are considered. Differences in criminal and civil law understanding of these concepts and their relationship are established.
It is substantiated that the subject of possession provided for in p. 2 art. 191 of the Criminal Code is only someone else's property, not the right to property and property rights.
It is substantiated that the concept of "property" in the relevant compositions of criminal offenses against property performs other functions than the concept of "property" in civil law, and that the criminal law understanding of property and civil law definition of property in p. 1 of art. 190 of the Civil Code are unequal (different).
On this basis and taking into account the legal positions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the conclusion is formulated that the subject of possession in the relevant composition of criminal offenses against property can be only someone else's property, not the right to it or not a property actions.
The concepts of “property right” and “right to property” are not identical, and the concepts of “property right”, the term "right to property" constitute real rights on the property, but no other rights that are not property.
In view of this, the possession by an official by abusing his official position the right to property or, in other words, the possession by an official by abusing of the right to property cannot be qualified under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code.
In addition, the article analyzes the definition of "right to property", which affect the recognition of the right to property as a kind of "subject" of the so-called "selfish abuses" under art. 364, 364-1 of the Criminal Code.
It is emphasized that when an official possession the right to property committed by abusing his official position, he cannot qualify under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code, as there is no such mandatory feature of p. 2 of art. 191 of the Criminal Code of abuse as someone else's property that is the subject of abuse.
24
Hazarika, Rupa. "Right To Property and Maintenance of Illegitimate Child Under Hindu Law." International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology 10, no. 5 (January 26, 2024): 684–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.15379/ijmst.v10i5.3439.
Full textAbstract:
The concept of property is evolving from the days of adopting the law relating to property of Hindu people. The laws relating to property undergoes many changes from time to time as to accommodate the changing need of the society. The major changes in the law of property held after the adoption of our Constitution. The Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality among men and women as a fundamental right. Following by Article 15 which allows special provisions can be made for women and child. Article 19 1(f) which said that right to property was a fundamental right, which later on amended and now property is a legal right under article 300A of the Constitution of India. Article 39(f) which is directive principle also concern about the safeguard of the child. The court observed that right to property is not only a constitutional right but also a human right1, and no person can be deprived of his property save and except by and in accordance with law. Due to Constitutional guarantees the legislature has brought Hindu Succession Act in 19562 and Hindu Marriage Act in 19553 along with three other Acts. Hindu Succession Act has amended and codified the law relating to intestate succession4. This Act has laid down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance of property. Moreover this Act gave rights to women to property which were unknown till then. The provision of this Act in relation to property is clear for legitimate child, but is silent for illegitimate child. The paper will focus on the right of illegitimate progeny to maintenance from their parents as well as right of inheritance to their parents self acquired as well as ancestral property in a Hindu family.
25
Yusuf Ibrahim, Muhammad, Dyah Ochtorina Susanti, and Suhariningsih Suhariningsih. "Characteristics Of Trade Secrets As Property Rights In The Indonesian Property Law System." International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences 4, no. 3 (June 28, 2023): 498–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.51601/ijersc.v4i3.648.
Full textAbstract:
This research reports on a legal study of trade secrets which are part of the Intellectual Property Rights system. Legal protection is given to trade secrets in order for trade secret right holders to be able to create a climate that encourages creation and innovation to advance Indonesian industry in order to compete in the scope of national and international business. A trade secret is information that the law considers to be a property. The classification of information as a trade secret must have economic value, be unknown to the public and kept confidential by the owner. There is a problem, namely the character of trade secrets that cannot be included in the system of property law in Indonesia, because the characteristics of trade secrets do not fulfill the elements of property rights and there is no single norm that regulates the registration of trade secret rights as property rights. Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Hobbes Theory of Legal Protection and Theory of Ownership are chosen as the analytical knife, that a trade secret is a legal right, namely a property right over an intangible movable property that arises due to a registration. The implication of this is that the trade secret law does not provide legal protection and legal certainty for the right holder.
26
Kuylen, Peter. "The Forgotten Property Right." Texas A&M Journal of Property Law 5, no. 3 (April 2019): 501–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.37419/jpl.v5.i3.5.
Full textAbstract:
With its move to the “at home” standard in Goodyear, Daimler, and BNSF, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporation defendants. This restriction offers questionable actual benefits to corporate defendants, but its rigid focus on defendant’s rights has impacted the ability of certain plaintiffs to bring a cause of action against those defendants. Because the at home standard infringes on this group of plaintiffs’ ability to assert their property right of redress in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), the Court should return to the previous “continuous and systematic contacts” standard developed under International Shoe. Hundreds of articles have been written in the four years since Daimler erased fifty years of general personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. But because personal jurisdiction analysis is traditionally defendant focused, there is little mention of the plaintiff’s property right in access to the courts in that literature. Personal jurisdiction rules should protect a defendant’s interests, but not to the total forfeiture of a plaintiff’s property right. Recognizing the at home standard as a misstep would resolve this constitutional conflict.
27
Rudenko, L. D., and O. L. Orlov. "The problem of the actual replacement of private property rights by rights of use in Ukraine: status and prospects." Legal horizons, no. 25 (2020): 57–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.21272/legalhorizons.2020.i25.p57.
Full textAbstract:
The article has substantiated the process of the de facto replacement of the right of private property by the rights of use; distinguished stages in the development of the private property institution in Ukraine; specified grounds for the emergence and termination of the right of private property and the rights of use; refined sense and scope of responsibility of the private owner and the holder;identified the main instrument of substitution of the right of private property by the rights of use; traced preconditions for passing inconsistent judgements on property protection by the ECHR; and analyzed possible consequences of further substitution of the right of private property by the rights of use. Regard to findings of the study it was considered about instability of the private property institution; identity between unofficial grounds for the termination of the right of private property and unofficial grounds for the emergence of the rights of use; existence of the direct threat to owner status in Ukraine; absence of legal grounds for increasing the sense of owner responsibility, including taxation of the private property; transformation of the feudal law into the modern rights of use combined with the right of possession; possibility of establishing a real type of polity and prospects for its development by ways of regulation of the ownership relations. The article has also considered about creating preconditions for restoring the feudal law and replacing democratic polity by a monarchy in Ukraine and other countries owing to severe restrictions on the right of private property, above all, through taxation of the privateproperty, and its de facto replacementby the rights of use.
28
Kumari, Neha, Ruchika Sharma, and Priyanka. "Intellectual property right (IPR)." Asian Journal of Pharmacy and Technology 10, no. 4 (2020): 250–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2231-5713.2020.00042.2.
Full text
29
Zhu, Lin. "The Theoretical Logic of the Construction of Sports Intellectual Property System." BCP Business & Management 29 (October 12, 2022): 543–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v29i.2321.
Full textAbstract:
Aiming to break through the narrow, broad and general understanding of sports intellectual property rights, this paper adopts interdisciplinary methodology to analyze and summarize the concept, attributes and categories of sports intellectual property rights, and explore the theoretical logic of the construction of sports intellectual property rights system. In terms of concept definition, it deeply analyzes the right attributes of sports intellectual property rights, and forms three types of rights: ontological sports intellectual property rights, necessary sports intellectual property rights and related sports intellectual property rights; in the formation mechanism, it puts forward that the construction of right system of sports intellectual property should follow the basic principles of comprehensiveness, systematization and openness; In terms of right relationship, it points out that the ontological sports intellectual property rights comes from sports itself, and the object of rights is irreplaceable. The necessity of sports intellectual property rights and sports is a direct relationship, and the object of rights is indispensable. Related sports intellectual property rights and sports are indirect relations, the object of rights has a supporting role，and the subjects of rights have mutual benefits.
30
Cherevko, P. P. "General personal non-property rights of the author in the mechanism of legal protection of the work." Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, no. 4 (November 27, 2022): 126–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2022.04.23.
Full textAbstract:
In this article, the author discloses the legal nature and content of the author’s personal non-property rights. An important conclusion is made that all personal non-property rights of the author can be divided into general and special. The general personal non-property rights of the author are inherent to the authors of any works, while the special personal non-property rights of the author are characteristic only of the authors of certain works. The scientific article examines the legal nature and content of the general personal non-property rights of the author of works, which include the right of authorship, the right to the author’s name, and the right to inviolability of the work. The author does not support the position expressed in science regarding the attribution of the right to publish a work (the release of a work to the world) to the personal non-propertyrights of the author, since both according to the position of the legislator and by its very nature this right is property.
General personal non-property rights of the author are defined. The right of authorship is a legally guaranteed possibility of a person to be considered the author of a work and the possibility of recognition of this fact by other persons. The right to anauthor’s name is a legally guaranteed opportunity for the author of a work to use or prohibit the use of his work under his own name (autonym), under a fictitious name (pseudonym) or without specifying a name (anonymous). The right to the inviolabilityof a work is a legally guaranteed possibility to prohibit making changes to the content of the work, its name, which may violate the integrity of the work, lead to its distortion or distortion in any use of the work without the consent of the author.The rights that protect the connection between the author’s personality and his work are personal non-property rights of the author. These rights have no monetary value, they are inherent in the fact of authorship and are absolute. The system of personal non-property rights of the author includes the right of authorship, the right to the author’s name and the right to inviolability of the work. The specified rights are general, as they belong to the author of any work. The current legislation of Ukraine allocates other personal non-property rights of the author, but they are characteristic of authors of works of fifine art, works of architecture, and therefore have a special character. The value of the author’s personal non-property rights is extremely high, as they are of a legal nature and contribute to the protection of the author’s honor and reputation. Legislation in the field of personal non-property rights of the author to works must be agreed among themselves (regarding the possibility of transferring personal non-property rights to other persons, which is provided for by the Central Committee of Ukraine and prohibited by the Law of Ukraine “On Copyright and Related Rights”) and developed in the direction of securing for authors other general personal rights non-property rights to works (the right to secretize a work, the right to withdraw a work, etc.), which can act as independent objects of scientific research. Securing these rights will expand the protection of the author’sinterests in preserving his creative identity. The author’s provisions are illustrated by examples from judicial practice and legal positions of the Supreme Court.
31
Yu, Hua, and Huang Ying. "Property Rights and China's Economic Development." Advanced Materials Research 347-353 (October 2011): 1140–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.347-353.1140.
Full textAbstract:
The nature of market transactions is the change of the main property rights, the core system of market economy is the property right. In 1960, Coase pulished “The Problem of Social Cost”,it inspired economists’ enthusiasm to property rights, and summarized the coase theorem. Clear property rights is the precondition of the market, and to define property by the government ofen has scale economy and violence advantage. Property rights include real rights and human rights, The real right is the derivation of human rights. Clear property is the real power to promote social and economic development, and the goals of social and economic development is development and improvement of the property.
32
Niyazi-Yusuf, Mirem. "PROPERTY REGISTRY. CREATION AND CONTENT." Journal Scientific and Applied Research 24, no. 1 (November 23, 2023): 5–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.46687/jsar.v24i1.361.
Full textAbstract:
The property register is a data system for real estate on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria and consists of the lots of individual properties. It contains the acts that recognize, transfer, amend or terminate the right of ownership or other real right to real estate. The foreclosures and mortgages of NI are included in the property register. The register shows the status of the specified circumstances after the last entry and makes it possible to follow chronologically the changes in the entered circumstances, as well as the entered acts. In the Property Register inquiries can be made about the ownership of the properties, the owners and the real rights and restrictions on them. Inquiries in the register can be made on-site at the registration offices in the country or via the Internet after payment of a fee specified in the price list and registration of the user.
33
Oliver, Peter, and Christopher Stothers. "Intellectual property under the Charter: Are the Courts scales properly calibrated?" Common Market Law Review 54, Issue 2 (April 1, 2017): 517–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2017034.
Full textAbstract:
Unusually, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU contains a provision (Art. 17(2)) expressly recognizing the right to the protection of intellectual property. With the notable exception of Luksan, the ECJ case law on this provision relates to cases in which the right to IP is pitted against other Charter rights. The Court has been driven to seek a “fair balance” between the rights at stake, an exercise which can only be carried out on a case-by-case basis, thus engendering considerable legal uncertainty. What is more, in several cases the Court has given more limited guidance than it might have done; the recent ruling in McFadden is encouraging, however. But the Court by no means bears sole responsibility for this legal uncertainty: courts are ill equipped to solve such complex policy issues; and, had it not been for the numerous gaps and ambiguities in the relevant EU legislation, the Court would not have had to step in so frequently.
34
Melnyk, Andriy. "ПОНЯТТЯ СПЕЦІАЛЬНОГО МАЙНОВОГО ПРАВА НА МАЙБУТНІЙ ОБ’ЄКТ НЕРУХОМОГО МАЙНА." Visnyk of the Lviv University. Series Law, no. 78 (June 20, 2024): 224–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.30970/vla.2024.78.224.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the issue of rethinking the doctrine of real property law through the prism of the content of the right of ownership of the future object of immovable property. The dynamism of property rights is marked by the systematic expansion of the list of its objects. Among them is the future object of real estate – a component part of a divisible object of unfinished construction provided for by the project documentation for construction, which will be an independent object of immovable property after the commissioning of the completed object. Future real estate objects are objects of a special property right, which consists in: owning and disposing of such an object at one’s will, regardless of the will of other persons, unless otherwise determined by law, and arises after obtaining the right to perform construction works, but not before the state registration of such a right, and it is terminated after the commissioning of the object completed by construction and state registration of the ownership right to the corresponding object of real estate; the right of the person under whom such a right is registered to demand the completion of the construction of the object (including the object, the component part of which is the future real estate object) and its acceptance into operation, which has the effect of such a person acquiring the right of ownership of the object an object of immovable property that corresponds to the technical characteristics of the corresponding object specified in the contract. At the same time, the special property right to the future object of real estate can be considered as a set of certain legal possibilities that develop in a dynamic aspect. The so-called «right of expectation» (legal expectation) is a limited real right, according to which the owner of this right is endowed with certain, but not all, rights of the owner of the property, and which certifies the right of its owner to obtain the right of ownership of real estate in in the future. In particular, this is a property right, which is a component of property as an object of civil rights. Keywords: property right, ownership right, special property right, future object of real estate, future object of real estate, right of expectation.
35
Kholmuminov, Jumanazar, and Farhod Kholiqnazarov. "Intellectual role of civil property protection in the world experience of law enforcement and legislation." Общество и инновации 2, no. 6 (January 13, 2022): 103–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol2-iss6-pp103-107.
Full textAbstract:
Intellectual property right is an intellectual (intellectual) right that belongs to the result of the activity of the initiator of the actions of the rights holder or owner. The owner has the right to the absolute legal use of such property, at his discretion, in any form and in any way. The use of such property objects belonging to the right holder on the basis of absolute right is allowed only with the consent of the rights holder or the owner.
36
Gerasimchuk, S. S. "Оn the question of protection of property rights and determination of subjects of property use: analysis of judicial practice." Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law 1, no. 81 (March 27, 2024): 180–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.81.1.27.
Full textAbstract:
The article highlights the method of protecting the right of ownership and determining the subjects of use on the example of the analysis of judicial practice. The interrelationship of the right of ownership and the right of use, the order of following the main thing and the accessory thing are determined. Examples of a court case in terms of the court’s determination of the right of ownership and subjects of the right of use are given. The issue of property rights is analyzed in the context of a key aspect of social relations between subjects of civil law. The provision that the state’s attitude to the issue of property rights determines the features of the ruling regime in the country and testifies to the development of civil society has been updated. The inviolability of the right to property and the level of its protection is a kind of litmus test that determines the level of democratic society and the state’s attitude to basic human and citizen rights. Thus, Part 1 of Article 4 of the Civil Code of Ukraine stipulates that every person has the right, in accordance with the procedure established by this Code, to apply to the court for the protection of his violated, unrecognized or disputed rights, freedoms or legitimate interests. According to Part 1 of Article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, every person has the right to apply to the court for the protection of his personal non-property or property right and interest. According to Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine, everyone has the right, in particular, to own, use and dispose of their property; the right to private property is acquired in accordance with the procedure established by law; no one can be unlawfully deprived of the right to property, the right to private property is inviolable (parts one, two, four). Analysis of court practice shows that consideration and resolution of civil cases in the field of violation of property rights is complicated by the imperfection of the legal system, the need to improve and change the existing legislation in this field. It was determined that mostly people go to court due to violations related to the lack of registration of ownership rights to real estate, loss of title documents, receipt of title documents by improper entities, presence of self-acting objects in real estate.
37
Spesivtsev, Denis. "The problems of recognition of property right on not accepted for operation immovable property as judicial way of protection of investor’s subjective civil rights and interests." Slovo of the National School of Judges of Ukraine, no. 3(32) (December 18, 2020): 94–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.37566/2707-6849-2020-3(32)-8.
Full textAbstract:
The article contains the results of author’s idea of an order of usage such way of protection of investor’s subjective civil rights on immovable property (an investment object) and his interests in it as recognition of property right. Nowadays the usage of such protecting way linked to two main problems. The first problem is an object of protection. At the moment of sue the investor has no property right on appropriate immovable thing that makes it impossible to protect it with above-mentioned way. The second problem is a widespread approach according to which the investor has a right to claim the right of property but does not has such right of property till the thing is taken into operation. Moreover scientific approach according to which till the immovable thing is taken into operation it considered as construction in process is supported in modern juridical literature. This make impossible to recognize property right on appropriate thing as on immovable one. The author proposes an alternative point of view on appropriate problem. In his opinion such way of protecting as recognition of the right of property on immovable thing, that is the investment object, can be used for protection of investor’s right to claim in appropriate relationship as well as for protection his proprietary interest in acquisition the right of property on appropriate real property. At the same time the taking of the immovable property into operation confirms the fact of the completion of the construction building but is not a circumstance that leads to such completion. The author states that an amendments that have been done in current legislative provisions of Ukraine during the last several years expanded the court’s possibilities in protection of investor’s rights in construction sector. Obviously the recognition of investor’s right to claim related to investment object doesn’t provide the satisfaction of his proprietary interest that is tendency to get right of property on appropriate immovable thing. Moreover, the right to claim is a mean of appropriate aim achievement. In this regard the most effective way of protection in analyzed situation is the recognition of investor’s right of property on immovable thing (investment object). Key words: immovable property, judicial protection, right of property, recognition of property right, proprietary interest
38
Isakov, Khaji-Murad. "The judiciary – as a main guarantee of protection of the right of ownership." Общество и инновации 2, no. 6 (January 19, 2022): 147–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol2-iss6-pp147-155.
Full textAbstract:
The right of ownership is recognized and protected by law in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Generally recognized principles, property rights, and freedom of contract are not strictly recognized. Which presuppose equality, autonomy of will and property independence of participants in civil law relations. Arbitrary interference in private affairs is not allowed. The freedom of ownership, use and disposal of property is conditioned, including the ability to alienate one's property into the ownership of other persons. Have their right to transfer property rights to someone, while remaining the owner, as well as their ownership rights, and the possibility of the right to use and dispose of. This article analyzes the concept and genesis of the origin of property rights, and also substantiates the importance of protecting this right by the judicial power of any state. The author has studied the constitutional foundations, regulatory and legal mechanisms for ensuring the protection of property rights by the court. According to the results of the analysis, relevant conclusions were drawn and proposals were developed.
39
Derevyanko, D. S. "NON-PROPERTY CORPORATE RIGHTS AS THE OBJECT OF NOTARY PROTECTION UNDER THE CIVIL LEGISLATION OF UKRAINE." Актуальні проблеми держави і права, no. 92 (January 24, 2022): 23–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.32837/apdp.v0i92.3257.
Full textAbstract:
Derevyanko D. S. Non-property corporate rights as the object of notary protection under the civil legislation of Ukraine. – Article.
In modern conditions of progress of market economy the activity of corporate legal entities has acquired the special value. In this regard, as well as taking into account the need to improve the investment climate in Ukraine, it is advisable to pay special attention to the issues of effective protection of the rights of participants of such legal entities. At the same time, it is difficult to deny the fact that the corporate relations are not limited to property. As of today, the problems of notarial protection of non-property corporate rights are still relevant. Corporate rights have a dual structure and have been divided into non-property and property rights, although this issue has been still controversial among the scientific community, and some researchers generally deny the non-property nature of corporate rights or point to their derivative nature and interdependence on property. The scientific search for the content of corporate relations allows us to state the dichotomous division of corporate rights into non-propert and property and at the same time come to a reasonable conclusion that despite the fact that there is a connection between these rights, non-property rights have become the independent category.
The prevailing position in scientific doctrine is that non-property corporate rights include: the right to participate in the management of a corporate company, the content of which covers a number of powers; the right to withdraw from the corporate company; the right to information about the activities of the corporate company. The scope and content of non-property corporate rights granted to participants (shareholders, members) differ depending on the type of organizational and legal form of the corporate organization.
It has been indicated in the article that the notarial form of protection of corporate rights is an integral attribute of ensuring the observance and inviolability of the rights and legitimate interests of corporate entities, as well as protection against abuse and illegal actions during the certification of local documents of corporate entities.
40
Iordek, H. O. "Shaping the International Law Principle of the Inviolability of the Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property in the Context of International Armed Conflict." Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law 2, no. 80 (January 20, 2024): 312–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2023.80.2.51.
Full textAbstract:
The article focuses on the formation of the international law principle of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in the context of an international armed conflict, given the relevance of the issue of damage and destruction of property as part of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The author examines the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions through the prism of international human rights law - as such, where the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (property rights) has been enshrined in the international law system, and also through the prism of international humanitarian law and international criminal law - as such, which are special in relation to the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in the context of international armed conflict.
The article examines the principle of inviolability of property rights at the national level, in particular, in legislative and judicial sources, and its impact on the formation of the relevant international law principle. In particular, the author analyses the philosophical development of the concepts of “sacredness” of property rights and inviolability of property rights, as well as the natural essence of this right for a person.
The author examines in detail the rules of conventional and customary international humanitarian law on the right to peaceful enjoyment of property/property rights depending on the type of acts that may be committed against property and the type of property against which certain acts are directed in the context of an international armed conflict or legal regime of occupation. The provisions on the protection of civilian objects, as well as the non-absolute nature of the protection of property rights in international armed conflict in cases of urgent military necessity, are carefully considered. Based on this analysis, the author identifies the key fundamental provisions on the basis of which the international legal principle of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property in the context of international armed conflict is formed.
41
Knysh, Z. I. "Guarantees for Exercising and Protecting the Property Right of Internally Displaced Persons." Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs 91, no. 4 (December 20, 2020): 130–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.32631/v.2020.4.12.
Full textAbstract:
The author has researched property relations of internally displaced persons, the peculiarities of which are determined by their legal status and the lack of sufficient legislative regulation to protect their property status. It has been emphasized that the realization of property rights occurs through the will and actions of the owner, which must fully comply with legal requirements, because the right of the owner to actions and the actions themselves – differ from each other. The difference between the content of a subjective right and its realization is, first of all, that the content of a subjective right covers only the possible behavior of an authorized person, and the realization of the right is a real, concrete action that leads to legal consequences. Therefore, the realization of property rights by internally displaced persons is absolute, i.e. absolute civil rights apply to an indefinite number of persons, except for the right of the owner.
The legal categories of “realization”, “protection” and “defense” have been analyzed as integral components of the property right of internally displaced persons. It has been stated that protection is the category of the normal state of existence of the subjective right, and defense is the category of the subjective right in a violated state.
It has been proved that in most cases people who have left their place of residence due to armed conflict or other forms of violence do not have a real opportunity to realize actual and sometimes legal (for example, due to the lack of proper documents on the property) possession. It indicates the need to introduce guarantees that will ensure not only the realization of property rights by internally displaced persons, but also the safety of their property. It has been offered to understand the guarantees of property rights of internally displaced persons as a set of methods, means and procedures aimed at ensuring the realization of their property rights.
The author has formulated own definition and has suggested the classification of guarantees of property rights of internally displaced persons, with their division into general and special, as well as guarantees of the realization of the rights and guarantees of protection.
42
Hasan, Rafeeq. "The provisionality of property rights in Kant's Doctrine of Right." Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48, no. 6 (December 2018): 850–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2018.1429181.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractI criticize two ways of interpreting Kant's claim that property rights are merely ‘provisional’ in the state of nature. Weak provisionality holds that in the state of nature agents can make rightful claims to property. What is lacking is the institutional context necessary to render their claims secure. By contrast, strong provisionality holds that making property claims in the state of nature wrongs others. I argue for a third view, anticipatory provisionality, according to which state of nature property claims do not wrong others, but anticipate a condition in which the authority to make such claims can no longer be unilaterally determined.
43
Friedman, David. "A Positive Account of Property Rights." Social Philosophy and Policy 11, no. 2 (1994): 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0265052500004404.
Full textAbstract:
In thinking and talking about rights, including property rights, it seems natural to put the argument in either moral or legal terms. From the former viewpoint, rights are part of a description of what actions are right or wrong. The fact that I have a right to do something is an argument, although not necessarily a sufficient argument, that someone who prevents me from doing it is acting wrongly.
44
Summers, James. "Property Rights and the Protection of Subsistence in Article 1(2) of the Human Rights Covenants." International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 26, no. 2 (February 2, 2019): 157–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02602007.
Full textAbstract:
This article explores how property rights have informed the peoples’ right to resources in Article 1(2) of the Human Rights Covenants. It examines practice in the interpretation of Article 1, as well as jurisprudence from the Inter-American and African human rights systems linking peoples’ rights and the right to property. It also highlights the pivotal role of protection of subsistence in making this connection. The right to resources can draw from different forms of property, including private, public, communal and traditional forms. Property rights under Article 1 have also applied to a broad range of communities, including indigenous peoples, subsistence farmers, traditional property owners, ethnic minorities, as well as the general population of a state. The common feature of these communities is their vulnerability in the protection of their means of subsistence, and this has linked property rights with Article 1.
45
Dolinska, Anna. "Personal non-property rights ensure a social existence of the Internet user as natural person." Legal Ukraine, no. 9 (October 30, 2020): 58–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.37749/2308-9636-2020-9(213)-6.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to issues of personal non-property rights which ensure social existence of the Internet user as an natural person. It is emphasized that Internet user, as a participant in civil law relations related to protection and defense of personal non-property rights, is endowed with all powers that determine general legal status of a participant in similar law relations. The peculiarities of the Internet user’s exercise of certain personal non-property rights are highlighted, which are due to nature of Internet relations. They reflect specifics of human communication in the Internet environment. At the same time, threats that require formation of a separate mechanism to ensure the protection the personal non-property rights of Internet users are increasing proportionately. Thus, civil law doctrine should take into account need to supplement existing theory of personal non-property rights with new elements that affect the status of a natural person as a participant in civil law relations. The specifics of Internet user’s legal status in the context of his personal non-property rights when performing certain actions on the Internet is: in moment of occurrence the legal status of Internet user as a holder of personal non-property rights; in ensuring principle of equality of all Internet users, regardless of their status in the field of private or public law relations; in compliance with specific requirements for individualization of Internet user. It is determined that Internet user acts in the Internet environment through the complex of individualizing features which include: avatar, nickname, online style (image), text information (post), which accompanied by photos, videos, information that defines Internet user’s list of tastes, comments of Internet user are placed under posts of other users, digital signature on the Internet. Key words: Internet user, personal non-property rights, right to family, right to name, right to respect for honor and dignity; the right to inviolability of business reputation, the right to freedom, the right to individuality, the right to personal papers, the right to secrecy of correspondence, the right to inviolability of the home, the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom of association.
46
A., Pekar. "The right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization: content and features." Almanac of law: The role of legal doctrine in ensuring of human rights 11, no. 11 (August 2020): 313–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.33663/2524-017x-2020-11-53.
Full textAbstract:
The article deals with the nature and features of the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization. It is argued that it is inappropriate to distinguish the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization in the structure of intellectual property rights from the right to protection of economic competition. Based on a system analysis of the legislation, scientific literature review, and the practice of its application, the right to protection is classified in an objective and subjective meaning. In its objective meaning, the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization is a component of the right to intellectual property, to protection against unfair competition. The subjective right to protection against the unfair use of the means of individualization is an independent right. The following features of the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization are identified on the basis of the analysis. The objective right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization is characterized by a set of civil law rules governing relations in the field of intellectual property rights and economic competition and determining the grounds, forms, procedure and methods of protection of such rights. This right combines two components: the protection of intellectual property rights and economic competition relations. The subjects of this right are economic entities. At the same time, the exercise of the right to protection in connection with the violation of the law on protection against unfair competition ensures the protection of consumers’ rights, as it guarantees them good quality goods on the market. The object of this right is relations in the field of intellectual property rights and economic competition. The subjective right to protection against unfair use of the means of individuation is the use of a provided by law capacity to renew, recognize or award the right to use the means of individualization by an economic entity. Such subjective right is characterized by the following features: it always implies the implementation of active actions, the possibility of choosing the forms and methods of protection. Keywords: means of individualization, unfair use, right to protection, objective right, subjective right, intellectual property rights, unfair competition.
47
Coval, S., J. C. Smith†, and Simon Coval‡. "The Foundations of Property and Property Law." Cambridge Law Journal 45, no. 3 (November 1986): 457–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197300118458.
Full textAbstract:
Explicit rights and freedoms such as those of thought, assembly, life, liberty and security of person occur in constitutional charters because they are activities and states which are necessary for any successful action. It is through the protection of its necessary conditions that freedom of action is itself protected. Moreover, without the inference that freedom of action is the basic value being protected we cannot justify the above rights and freedoms. If we accept this hypothesis about the justificatory structure of constitutions it provides us with a test of the completeness of the list of explicit rights and freedoms. We argue that no charter could justifiably include the usual explicit rights and freedoms and not include the right of the individual to property since the latter is no less a condition of free action than are the former.
48
Chakraborty, Sanjit Kumar, Alex K. Koshy, and Anjana Raghunath. "Data As Property: Towards a Property Based Model?" Global Privacy Law Review 4, Issue 4 (November 1, 2023): 181–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/gplr2023025.
Full textAbstract:
Data has become one of the most important commercial commodities in the modern age. This article looks at data from the perspective of property rights to ascertain if data can be properly regulated if granted property rights. Such an analysis would require balancing considerations from different stakeholders, including data users from whom the data points have been extracted. The article also looks at industrial data and treats it as a distinct category from usergenerated data. The article contends that it may not be also easy to make this distinction. Hence, a holistic approach to data is necessary. Currently, big data companies have monopolized the field, and the article attempts to suggest a new model to balance the right of different stakeholders.
49
Conroy, Declan. "Property Rights in Augmented Reality." Michigan Technology Law Review, no. 24.1 (2017): 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.36645/mtlr.24.1.property.
Full textAbstract:
Increasingly, cities, towns, and even rural communities are being slowly reshaped by a dynamic yet initially imperceptible phenomenon: the elaboration of augmented reality. Through applications that place virtual features over specific, real-world locations, layers of augmented reality are proliferating, adding new elements to an increasingly wide range of places. However, while many welcome the sudden appearance of arenas for battling digital creatures in their neighborhood or the chance to write virtual messages on their neighbor’s wall, the areas being augmented oftentimes are privately owned, thereby implicating property rights. Many intrusions, of course, are de minimis: an isolated, invisible Pikachu unexpectedly appearing over the GPS coordinates corresponding with one’s home can hardly be labeled a tragedy. Nevertheless, other infringements—such as the inundation of a church’s facade with offensive digital messages or the establishment of a virtual center of commerce in one’s backyard—seem to demand a solution. To date, however, commentators, courts, and litigants have almost universally assumed that property law does not and cannot provide recourse for such intangible invasions. Resisting such expectations, this Essay will argue that not only can property law play a role in augmented reality, but that its application in this context leads naturally to a regime that protects real property owners’ interest in the digital space linked to their property. In the process of so doing, this Essay will illuminate how recognizing real property owners’ right to control relevant parcels of site-specific augmented reality does not mark a novel expansion of property law but accords—and in many ways is dictated by—existing theory and precedent. The project is divided into four parts. Part I provides an overview of augmented reality and its myriad applications, highlighting in the process the concerns many of these applications raise for real property owners. Part II then dissects a number of different property law theories and illustrates how rights to augmented reality—specifically rights inhering in the owner of the corresponding parcel of land—fit comfortably into each one. Finally, Part III analyzes case law supporting the recognition of this new property interest, focusing in particular on the ancient ad coelum and much more recent cyberproperty lines of cases. Part IV offers a brief conclusion.
50
Narveson, Jan. "Waldron on Private Property." Dialogue 29, no. 1 (1990): 133–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0012217300012828.
Full textAbstract:
Do individuals have a right to private property? That is the question pursued in this lengthy investigation (445 pages). Waldron distinguishes utilitarian arguments from “Right-based” ones. That is hardly an exhaustive distinction, one would think; reliance on its being so would not bode well. But having made such a distinction, he believes that the question comes to whether there are “any good right-based arguments for private property.” This, he thinks, amounts to the question: are any important individual interests served “by the existence of private property as opposed to someother sort of property regime?” The alternative, he thinks, is to turn to utilitarian arguments about property institutions, “rather than having it treated as the basis of right” (p. 5). How we are to measure “importance,” and to whom the proposed regimes are to be important is not discussed. And of course some think that we can, too, have a utilitarian-based theory of rights. And there will be other complaints about Waldron's framework; but we will not be able to go further into such matters here.