On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'. This session: Session 4 – Reforming Data Protection – Enforcement Perspectives - Chair: Dr Jennifer Cobbe, CIPIL - Dr Orla Lynskey, London School of Economics - Dr Johnny Ryan, Irish Council for Civil Liberties - Dr Luca Tosoni, Norwegian Data Protection Authority - Professor Gloria Gonzalez Fuster, Vrije Universiteit Brussel For full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'. This session: Session 3 – Reforming Data Protection – Substantive Perspectives (Keynotes) - Chair: Professor David Erdos, CIPIL - Dr Winfried Veil, Data Protection Landscape - Professor Bert-Jaap Koops, Tilburg University - Professor Nadja Purtova, Utrecht University For full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'. This session: Session 2 – UK Data Protection – The Changing Enforcement Landscape - Chair: Jon Baines, Mishcon - Professor David Erdos, CIPIL - Claudia Berg, General Counsel, Information Commissioner's Office - Jim Killock, Open Rights Group For full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'. This session: Session 1 – UK Data Protection – The Changing Substantive Landscape - Introduction to Conference: Professor David Erdos, CIPIL - Chair: Dr Jennifer Cobbe, CIPIL (04:24) - Dr Michael Veale, University College London (05:12) - Gavin Freeguard, Policy Associate, Connected by Data (25:54) - Vivienne Artz, Data Strategy & Privacy Policy Advisor to CIPL (43:27) For full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On 12 March 2024 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the 2024 Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture, delivered by Professor Oren Bracha (William C. Conner Chair in Law, The University of Texas, Austin). Abstract: It is a universal truism that the subject matter of modern intellectual property law is intangible information. Yet the field is haunted by a stubborn specter of physicalism. Time and again, courts and commentators engage in reasoning that relies on physicalist and quasi-physicalist assumptions or fails to absorb the implications of the intangible object of property. This happens in a wide variety of contexts, spanning from the patentability of DNA sequences to copyright infringement by training Generative Artificial Intelligence systems. The lecture explores persisting physicalism in intellectual property law, diagnoses its sources, and argues that we should go beyond it. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/

On 12 March 2024 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the 2024 Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture, delivered by Professor Oren Bracha (William C. Conner Chair in Law, The University of Texas, Austin). Abstract: It is a universal truism that the subject matter of modern intellectual property law is intangible information. Yet the field is haunted by a stubborn specter of physicalism. Time and again, courts and commentators engage in reasoning that relies on physicalist and quasi-physicalist assumptions or fails to absorb the implications of the intangible object of property. This happens in a wide variety of contexts, spanning from the patentability of DNA sequences to copyright infringement by training Generative Artificial Intelligence systems. The lecture explores persisting physicalism in intellectual property law, diagnoses its sources, and argues that we should go beyond it. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora, KCL Abstract: As trade marks have evolved to perform an expressive function, courts and scholars on both sides of the Atlantic have devoted increased attention to elucidating when, and how, marks and speech interact. Three forms of interaction can be identified in European and US case law. First, in infringement litigation, a defendant can invoke speech with a view toward insulating from liability his unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark for expressive purposes, usually for parody or commentary. Second, in trade mark registration, unsuccessful applicants can invoke speech to challenge the validity of a refusal of registration. And third, in constitutional challenges, a trade mark owner can invoke speech in seeking to strike down public measures encroaching on trade mark use. Regrettably, to date, commentators have had a tendency to focus on one form of interaction at a time, placing special emphasis on infringement cases. Their analyses and proposals for reform have privileged this form of interaction in an effort to avoid the severe repercussions that unbridled enforcement of trade mark rights could have on defendants’ speech. This has led to an impoverished understanding of the interaction between marks and speech, broadly considered. In the absence of comprehensive studies covering the diversity of instances where both sets of rights interact, conventional wisdom posits that their interaction is unidirectional, in the sense that trade mark rights chill expression. My ongoing research seeks to redress this misconception by engaging in a taxonomic analysis of the diverse scenarios in which marks and speech interact. Their joint study reveals that this interaction is best understood as a two-way street, where freedom of expression can simultaneously limit and validate trade mark rights. The proposed reconceptualization of the interaction between marks and speech can contribute significantly to the advancement of the field. Biography: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora is a Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at The Dickson Poon School of Law. Alvaro joined King's College London in 2024, having previously worked as a Lecturer in Law at the University of York (2021-2024). Alvaro has earned degrees from the University of Oxford (DPhil), Harvard Law School (LLM) and Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid ICADE (LLB). Before pursuing his doctoral studies, Alvaro worked as an associate lawyer at Hogan Lovells LLP’s intellectual property litigation department in Madrid. Alvaro's research interests lie at the intersection between intellectual property law and other fields –notably human rights, competition law and economics–, often from a comparative perspective. Alvaro's work has been published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law (BJIL), the International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) or the Intellectual Property Quarterly (IPQ). For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora, KCL Abstract: As trade marks have evolved to perform an expressive function, courts and scholars on both sides of the Atlantic have devoted increased attention to elucidating when, and how, marks and speech interact. Three forms of interaction can be identified in European and US case law. First, in infringement litigation, a defendant can invoke speech with a view toward insulating from liability his unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark for expressive purposes, usually for parody or commentary. Second, in trade mark registration, unsuccessful applicants can invoke speech to challenge the validity of a refusal of registration. And third, in constitutional challenges, a trade mark owner can invoke speech in seeking to strike down public measures encroaching on trade mark use. Regrettably, to date, commentators have had a tendency to focus on one form of interaction at a time, placing special emphasis on infringement cases. Their analyses and proposals for reform have privileged this form of interaction in an effort to avoid the severe repercussions that unbridled enforcement of trade mark rights could have on defendants’ speech. This has led to an impoverished understanding of the interaction between marks and speech, broadly considered. In the absence of comprehensive studies covering the diversity of instances where both sets of rights interact, conventional wisdom posits that their interaction is unidirectional, in the sense that trade mark rights chill expression. My ongoing research seeks to redress this misconception by engaging in a taxonomic analysis of the diverse scenarios in which marks and speech interact. Their joint study reveals that this interaction is best understood as a two-way street, where freedom of expression can simultaneously limit and validate trade mark rights. The proposed reconceptualization of the interaction between marks and speech can contribute significantly to the advancement of the field. Biography: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora is a Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at The Dickson Poon School of Law. Alvaro joined King's College London in 2024, having previously worked as a Lecturer in Law at the University of York (2021-2024). Alvaro has earned degrees from the University of Oxford (DPhil), Harvard Law School (LLM) and Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid ICADE (LLB). Before pursuing his doctoral studies, Alvaro worked as an associate lawyer at Hogan Lovells LLP’s intellectual property litigation department in Madrid. Alvaro's research interests lie at the intersection between intellectual property law and other fields –notably human rights, competition law and economics–, often from a comparative perspective. Alvaro's work has been published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law (BJIL), the International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) or the Intellectual Property Quarterly (IPQ). For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Thomas St Quintin, Hogarth Chambers Abstract: Lessons from the decision of the IPEC in Shazam v Only Fools the Dining Experience, and cases referred to in that decision, addressing the findings that copyright can subsist in fictional characters (and the factors that the court relied upon in reaching that conclusion), and the defences of fair dealing for the purposes of parody and pastiche. Biography: Thomas St Quintin is a barrister at Hogarth Chambers. He specialises in intellectual property, media and entertainment. He has been instructed in cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court, and has appeared as the sole or lead advocate in each of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, and in the UKIPO. His practice covers all areas of IP law, and is fairly evenly split between patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and confidential information cases (both technical and those involving privacy). He is a co-author of the Modern Law of Trade Marks, of Intellectual Property in Europe, and is a contributor to Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Thomas St Quintin, Hogarth Chambers Abstract: Lessons from the decision of the IPEC in Shazam v Only Fools the Dining Experience, and cases referred to in that decision, addressing the findings that copyright can subsist in fictional characters (and the factors that the court relied upon in reaching that conclusion), and the defences of fair dealing for the purposes of parody and pastiche. Biography: Thomas St Quintin is a barrister at Hogarth Chambers. He specialises in intellectual property, media and entertainment. He has been instructed in cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court, and has appeared as the sole or lead advocate in each of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, and in the UKIPO. His practice covers all areas of IP law, and is fairly evenly split between patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and confidential information cases (both technical and those involving privacy). He is a co-author of the Modern Law of Trade Marks, of Intellectual Property in Europe, and is a contributor to Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Stuart Baran, Three New Square Abstract: The UK Supreme Court recently gave judgment in Thaler, upholding the refusal of patent applications listing DABUS, an AI, as the inventor. After looking at what the UKSC decided and why, I will consider three broader questions that arise from the litigation: (i) why did the case take the shape it did – in particular, was it driven by questions of procedure more than substance?; (ii) what does the judgment mean for patents arising from AI inventions in future?; and (iii) how do we approach the appropriate division of labour between the courts and Parliament in approaching these questions? Biography: Stuart is Barrister at Three New Square Chambers. He was Legal 500 Junior of the Year in IP, IT and Media for 2018. In 2019 he was appointed to a three-year term as one of two Standing Counsel to HM Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. He practises in all areas of intellectual property, including: patents, SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs and confidential information. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Stuart Baran, Three New Square Abstract: The UK Supreme Court recently gave judgment in Thaler, upholding the refusal of patent applications listing DABUS, an AI, as the inventor. After looking at what the UKSC decided and why, I will consider three broader questions that arise from the litigation: (i) why did the case take the shape it did – in particular, was it driven by questions of procedure more than substance?; (ii) what does the judgment mean for patents arising from AI inventions in future?; and (iii) how do we approach the appropriate division of labour between the courts and Parliament in approaching these questions? Biography: Stuart is Barrister at Three New Square Chambers. He was Legal 500 Junior of the Year in IP, IT and Media for 2018. In 2019 he was appointed to a three-year term as one of two Standing Counsel to HM Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. He practises in all areas of intellectual property, including: patents, SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs and confidential information. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Professor Paul Wragg, University of Leeds Biography: Professor Paul Wragg is Professor of Media Law at the University of Leeds. He has written extensively on privacy and press freedom. His monograph on the compatibility of compulsory press regulation with press freedom was published by Hart in May, 2020. He is co-editor (with Professor András Koltay) of a collection of papers examining comparative privacy and defamation laws, published by Edward Elgar in July 2020 and was previously editor-in-chief of Communications Law (2016-2019). He has been at Leeds since September 2009, having previously taught at Durham University and the University of Birmingham. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Paul Wragg, University of Leeds Biography: Professor Paul Wragg is Professor of Media Law at the University of Leeds. He has written extensively on privacy and press freedom. His monograph on the compatibility of compulsory press regulation with press freedom was published by Hart in May, 2020. He is co-editor (with Professor András Koltay) of a collection of papers examining comparative privacy and defamation laws, published by Edward Elgar in July 2020 and was previously editor-in-chief of Communications Law (2016-2019). He has been at Leeds since September 2009, having previously taught at Durham University and the University of Birmingham. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Alina Trapova, UCL Biography: Dr Alina Trapova is a Lecturer in IP Law at University College London (UCL) and a Co-Director of the Institute for Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at UCL Laws. Prior to that, she worked at the University of Nottingham as an Assistant Professor in Law and Autonomous Systems and Bocconi University as a Research Assistant and Coordinator of the LLM in European Business and Social Law. Alina's research interests focus on copyright law and the implications of machine learning and artificial intelligence on the creative industries. Alina also has a keen interest in EU law, particularly in examining the EU's law-making powers in the field of IP law. She is also a keen blogger and acts as a Co-Managing Editor of the well-known Kluwer Copyright Blog. Abstract: AI-generated output has been a topic for discussion in the past years in academic, institutional and governmental circles. The topic involves a copyright challenge on both the input and output stage: (i) is an AI system engaging in copyright infringing activities when it processes information for the purposes of training; and (ii) are the outputs of these systems protected with copyright law as original works? While answers to these questions have remained difficult to find, a new type of AI systems have come to light – generative AI. These typically engage in the so-called prompt engineering activity whereby images and music are generated as a result of written text instructions. The copyright law puzzle becomes even more difficult to put together. This seminar will paint the picture of these issues by referring to EU, UK, and US copyright law due to ongoing litigation in these jurisdictions, as well as legislative and policy initiatives. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Alina Trapova, UCL Biography: Dr Alina Trapova is a Lecturer in IP Law at University College London (UCL) and a Co-Director of the Institute for Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at UCL Laws. Prior to that, she worked at the University of Nottingham as an Assistant Professor in Law and Autonomous Systems and Bocconi University as a Research Assistant and Coordinator of the LLM in European Business and Social Law. Alina's research interests focus on copyright law and the implications of machine learning and artificial intelligence on the creative industries. Alina also has a keen interest in EU law, particularly in examining the EU's law-making powers in the field of IP law. She is also a keen blogger and acts as a Co-Managing Editor of the well-known Kluwer Copyright Blog. Abstract: AI-generated output has been a topic for discussion in the past years in academic, institutional and governmental circles. The topic involves a copyright challenge on both the input and output stage: (i) is an AI system engaging in copyright infringing activities when it processes information for the purposes of training; and (ii) are the outputs of these systems protected with copyright law as original works? While answers to these questions have remained difficult to find, a new type of AI systems have come to light – generative AI. These typically engage in the so-called prompt engineering activity whereby images and music are generated as a result of written text instructions. The copyright law puzzle becomes even more difficult to put together. This seminar will paint the picture of these issues by referring to EU, UK, and US copyright law due to ongoing litigation in these jurisdictions, as well as legislative and policy initiatives. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Eden Sarid, Essex Law School Biography: Eden Sarid is a lecturer at Essex Law School. His research and teaching interests include intellectual property, land law, law and technology, and cultural heritage law. Abstract: This study offers a new way of thinking through the questions of what drives creativity and the role that IP plays in creative production, by empirically examining how the drag subculture governed creativity, entitlements, and information-exchange over time. First, in the 1990s when drag was a counterculture and from the mid-2010s onwards, after transforming into a lucrative mainstream industry. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Eden Sarid, Essex Law School Biography: Eden Sarid is a lecturer at Essex Law School. His research and teaching interests include intellectual property, land law, law and technology, and cultural heritage law. Abstract: This study offers a new way of thinking through the questions of what drives creativity and the role that IP plays in creative production, by empirically examining how the drag subculture governed creativity, entitlements, and information-exchange over time. First, in the 1990s when drag was a counterculture and from the mid-2010s onwards, after transforming into a lucrative mainstream industry. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Professor Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi, IIUM Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Biography: Ida Madieha bt. Abdul Ghani Azmi obtained her LLB from IIUM, LLM from University of Cambridge and Ph.D from University of London (1995). Dr. Ida has authored and presented extensively on various issues on Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw. She is currently a Professor at the Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws and the former Dean of Center for Postgraduate Studies, IIUM. She was the lead consultant for the Drafting of National Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Competition (2017-2018). She served as the Consultant to WIPO for the Drafting of IP Modules for MyIPO Malaysia (2017), the IP Policy for Kathmandu University (2016) and IP Curriculum and Syllabus in Bangladesh (2014). She has assisted WIPO on to design Database of Copyright law and Policy for ASEAN countries (2022) Model Curriculum on Copyright for Arts and Culture Schools in Developing Countries (UG and PG) (2022) and serve as a resource person for WIPO Training programmes. She currently serves as the consultant to the drafting of the Malaysian Cybersecurity Bill, which is awaiting to be tabled to the Parliament. Dr Ida served as a member of the Board of the Malaysian Intellectual Property Office (MyIPO) (2004-2008), (2018-2020). She was the former Deputy Director of the Malaysian Copyright Tribunal (2014-2016). She acts as a Domain Name Panelist with the Kuala Lumpur Arbitration Centre and Asian International Arbitration Centre. In the past, Dr Ida served as a resource person for the Intellectual Property Training Centre, ILKAB and the WTO Regional Trade Policy Program for Asia Pacific. She has served as the External Reviewer for the Multimedia University Law Faculty (2017-2018)(2019-2021) and Guest Editor, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities. Abstract: Many countries, including Malaysia, are embarking on ambitious plans to take full advantage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies in transforming their economy. Given that the deployment of AI necessitates a supportive and comprehensive legal framework, the legal status of AI as an artificial person comes into picture. Where an AI technology is considered as mere tool for human consumption, there is no issue as to whether they should be recognised as separate legal entities accountable to their own rights and responsibilities. Yet, this is where the storm is brewing. With the ability of AI platforms to match human abilities on certain activities, in addition to the astronomical resources being poured into the development of human-like sentient AI, there is a fresh call for the legal status of AI to be revisited. This talk begins with an examination of the ontological status of personhood in contemporary discourse. The talk then moves to explore the discussion on ‘personhood’ within Muslim scholar’s discourse. Core to the issue is in what context would rights and obligations arising from AI activities and transactions be recognised under the Shariah. As Shariah is the golden thread that binds most Muslim countries, the articulation of the Shariah perspective would be beneficial to these countries aiming to build their entire economy based on AI products and services. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi, IIUM Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Biography: Ida Madieha bt. Abdul Ghani Azmi obtained her LLB from IIUM, LLM from University of Cambridge and Ph.D from University of London (1995). Dr. Ida has authored and presented extensively on various issues on Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw. She is currently a Professor at the Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws and the former Dean of Center for Postgraduate Studies, IIUM. She was the lead consultant for the Drafting of National Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Competition (2017-2018). She served as the Consultant to WIPO for the Drafting of IP Modules for MyIPO Malaysia (2017), the IP Policy for Kathmandu University (2016) and IP Curriculum and Syllabus in Bangladesh (2014). She has assisted WIPO on to design Database of Copyright law and Policy for ASEAN countries (2022) Model Curriculum on Copyright for Arts and Culture Schools in Developing Countries (UG and PG) (2022) and serve as a resource person for WIPO Training programmes. She currently serves as the consultant to the drafting of the Malaysian Cybersecurity Bill, which is awaiting to be tabled to the Parliament. Dr Ida served as a member of the Board of the Malaysian Intellectual Property Office (MyIPO) (2004-2008), (2018-2020). She was the former Deputy Director of the Malaysian Copyright Tribunal (2014-2016). She acts as a Domain Name Panelist with the Kuala Lumpur Arbitration Centre and Asian International Arbitration Centre. In the past, Dr Ida served as a resource person for the Intellectual Property Training Centre, ILKAB and the WTO Regional Trade Policy Program for Asia Pacific. She has served as the External Reviewer for the Multimedia University Law Faculty (2017-2018)(2019-2021) and Guest Editor, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities. Abstract: Many countries, including Malaysia, are embarking on ambitious plans to take full advantage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies in transforming their economy. Given that the deployment of AI necessitates a supportive and comprehensive legal framework, the legal status of AI as an artificial person comes into picture. Where an AI technology is considered as mere tool for human consumption, there is no issue as to whether they should be recognised as separate legal entities accountable to their own rights and responsibilities. Yet, this is where the storm is brewing. With the ability of AI platforms to match human abilities on certain activities, in addition to the astronomical resources being poured into the development of human-like sentient AI, there is a fresh call for the legal status of AI to be revisited. This talk begins with an examination of the ontological status of personhood in contemporary discourse. The talk then moves to explore the discussion on ‘personhood’ within Muslim scholar’s discourse. Core to the issue is in what context would rights and obligations arising from AI activities and transactions be recognised under the Shariah. As Shariah is the golden thread that binds most Muslim countries, the articulation of the Shariah perspective would be beneficial to these countries aiming to build their entire economy based on AI products and services. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.