This paper provides a comprehensive overview of intellectual property (IP) law, examining the major categories of protection available to creators and innovators. Beginning with a conceptual definition of intellectual property and its underlying justifications as a fundamental human right, the paper explores copyright, trademark, and patent law in turn, analyzing the scope, duration, and limitations of each. It also addresses lesser-known forms of protection, including industrial design and geographical indication. The paper concludes by arguing that robust IP protection, despite criticism that it may dampen innovation, is essential to incentivizing creation and enabling the technological and cultural advances that benefit society at large.
The paper demonstrates effective use of authoritative institutional sources (WIPO) alongside peer-reviewed legal scholarship to support definitional claims and policy arguments. By consistently pairing a cited definition with an applied example, the author shows how to anchor abstract legal concepts in credible authority while making them accessible to readers unfamiliar with the subject.
The paper opens with a broad conceptual introduction establishing what intellectual property is and why it warrants legal protection. It then moves through three major IP types — copyright, trademark, and patent — each receiving its own section with coverage of scope, rights, limitations, and emerging legal challenges. A brief section addresses secondary IP forms (industrial design and geographical indication). The conclusion synthesizes the discussion around the policy justification for IP protection, using the open-source movement as a counter-argument that is ultimately reframed in favor of strong IP rights.
Intellectual property can be a difficult concept to define because, at its heart, it describes property rights to intangible things, such as creations of the mind. Because this involves concepts rather than physical property, the courts and legal system did not extend property protection to these types of creations for many years. The concept is further complicated by the fact that some intellectual property has a physical, or tangible, component. For example, books may exist in a physical format, movies may come on a DVD, and music may be distributed on a CD. When one purchases those objects, one acquires the object itself, but the meaningful part of the purchase is the content, which is what gives it value.
Intellectual property goes beyond artistic creations; it also encompasses other types of creative or innovative ideas, such as scientific processes, trade names, and logos. Because the scope of intellectual property is so broad, it is helpful to consider it as belonging to two broader categories: industrial property and copyright-protected works (WIPO, n.d.). Copyright-protected works generally refer to those things that people in the general public would consider artistic endeavors, such as literary works, movies, plays, music, works of art, television broadcasts, and radio broadcasts (WIPO, n.d.). Industrial property can be thought of as the type of intellectual considerations that facilitate business and industry, and includes trademarks, inventions, processes that may have patent protection, and sometimes work product.
Like any other type of property, intellectual property comes with a set of property rights for the owner, although these rights can be difficult to understand because of the nature of the property and the inherent difficulties in establishing ownership in a concept or idea. Essentially, intellectual property rights exist to provide the creator the right to benefit from their intellectual property. This right is considered a basic and fundamental human right, described in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (WIPO, n.d.).
Furthermore, like other property rights, the intellectual property owner has the right to sell or lease their interest in their property rights, for profit or other consideration, to a third party. However, more so than with most tangible property conveyances, the owner of intellectual property can limit how the purchaser uses the property. For example, an author who writes a book can sell the rights to that book to a publisher, granting the publisher an exclusive right to publish and distribute the book in a certain market for a certain time period. The publisher then sells individual copies to individual purchasers. Those purchasers receive the right to read that one copy and even to resell it, but they do not acquire any rights to the content itself. A book purchaser, for instance, does not have the right to republish and distribute the book's contents. Moreover, all of this can occur without the author losing ownership rights in the book, though the rights to distribution would be limited by the terms of the publishing contract. This type of convoluted distribution of property rights is very common in the copyright context and highlights the flexibility that is inherent in the realm of intellectual property.
Copyright may be the type of intellectual property that most people understand best. Copyright law protects literary and artistic creations for their creators. However, while copyright may be something people now take for granted, artistic works have not always enjoyed copyright protection. Moreover, the field of copyright law has always been challenged to keep pace with artistic innovation. "The development of copyright law has been a continuing response to the challenges posed by new technologies that reproduce and distribute human expression" (Leaffer, 2011). The most basic element of copyright protection covers the work itself. "A closely associated field is 'related rights' or rights related to copyright that encompass rights similar or identical to those of copyright, although sometimes more limited and of shorter duration" (WIPO, n.d.). These related rights may extend to those who produce or otherwise distribute copyrighted works.
Copyright protection extends to a broad body of artistic works, and as different artistic genres develop they may also become eligible for protection. Books, plays, newspapers, paintings, and sculptures have traditionally been eligible for copyright protection. What many people may not realize is that choreography is also protected by copyright. Films, television, and radio are newer — though by now well-established — mediums for copyright protection.
An emerging area of protection is computer programs and databases, a field that has grown exponentially with the proliferation of smartphones and other devices that have led to a surge in software applications. "An environment characterized by rapid technological change creates two conditions that determine the direction and evolution of copyright law: legal delay and legal uncertainty" (Depoorter, 2009). There is no question that the legal community did not respond in a timely manner to some of the copyright challenges that the advent of the internet and related technologies brought to creators — not only those who create computer programs, but also those who have created other traditionally copyright-protected works that can now be disseminated far more easily through the internet and related technology.
Like copyrights, almost everyone is familiar with trademarks, because people encounter them in their everyday lives. Most people can recognize the marks of well-known brands, and those marks carry associated traits or characteristics that define a company's brand identity. "A trademark is a distinctive sign that identifies certain goods or services produced or provided by an individual or a company" (WIPO, n.d.). Once a company has established a trademark, the trademark owner has the exclusive right to use that mark to identify goods or services. This protects consumers because they know that if they are purchasing a good or service identified with a particular mark, they are receiving the quality they associate with that brand.
Trademarks are interesting because they can encompass a wide array of different types of symbols. A trademark can be a name, including a brand name, or a symbol. However, trademarks can also encompass things like packaging shape and color. Furthermore, trademarks are not always brand-specific. For example, "collective marks are owned by an association whose members use them to indicate products with a certain level of quality and who agree to adhere to specific requirements set by the association" (WIPO, n.d.). It is therefore important to keep in mind that trademarks are not limited to specific companies, but can offer broader protections.
Trademark protection differs from other types of intellectual property in a few key ways. First, while almost every country recognizes trademark protection, that protection is generally limited to trademarks registered within that country. Moreover, some countries are known for ignoring trademark protections, while others are known for rigorous enforcement. Trademark protection also has a different duration than other types of intellectual property. While trademarks can, at least theoretically, be maintained indefinitely, "the rights to a trademark can be lost through abandonment, improper licensing or assignment, or genericity" (Fisher, 2003). Abandonment is relatively easy to demonstrate; "non-use for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment" (Fisher, 2003).
There are some arguments that vigorous protection of intellectual property interests dampens innovation because, in today's high-tech world, so much innovation depends upon existing technology. There are even movements, such as those advocating open-sourcing, that promote the creation of intellectual property without retaining an ownership interest. That some creators may choose this approach might, at first glance, appear to argue against protecting intellectual property interests. However, it is actually an argument in favor of such protections. Just as real property laws allow one to open private land for public use, intellectual property laws allow creators to make intellectual property available for public use — but that choice belongs to the creator, and only because the law first recognizes the creator's right to make it.
The reality is that protecting intellectual property rights acknowledges that profit is a significant motivator for creation and safeguards the right of people to benefit from their work. This provides both tangible and intangible benefits not only for creators, but also for consumers. The remarkable technological advances of the last half-century, for example, would have been unlikely in an environment that did not protect innovators' rights to profit from their inventions. Moreover, if inventors could not sell those rights exclusively to a manufacturer or developer, it is unlikely that companies would have been willing to invest the enormous sums of capital necessary to bring these ideas into mainstream use. Anyone who uses a smartphone, a laptop, a personal GPS, or any other modern electronic device is benefiting from the protection of intellectual property rights.
A tremendous amount of modern entertainment would also not exist without copyright protection. Many of today's popular films cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce; it seems highly unlikely that they would be made without the assurance of copyright protection. Finally, it would be very difficult for consumers to know whether the products they purchase are genuine or counterfeit if companies could not obtain copyright, patent, and trademark protections. Without these protections, consumers would face a far greater risk of paying full price for inferior knock-off goods and services. Taken together, these considerations make a compelling case for the continued recognition and enforcement of intellectual property rights across all their major forms.
Depoorter, B. (2009). Technology and uncertainty: the shaping effect on copyright law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157(6), 1831–1868.
Fisher, W. (2003). Overview of trademark law. Retrieved September 20, 2014, from Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University website: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
Leaffer, M. A. (2011). Understanding copyright law. Danvers, MA: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
Lee, P. (2010). Patent law and the two cultures. The Yale Law Journal, 120(1), 2–82.
Merges, R. P. (2010). The trouble with trolls: innovation, rent-seeking, and patent law reform. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(4), 1583–1614.
Seymore, S. (2011). Rethinking novelty in patent law. Duke Law Journal, 60(4), 919–966.
Teuber, R. (2010). Geographical indications of origin as a tool of product differentiation: the case of coffee. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 22(3–4), 277–298.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.). What is intellectual property? Retrieved September 19, 2014, from WIPO website:
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.