This book explores how copyright laws are perceived within street art and graffiti subcultures to examine how artists and writers view certain creative aspects of their own practice. Drawing on ethnographic research and fieldwork, the book gives voice to the main actors of these communities and highlights their feelings and opinions toward issues that are increasingly impacting their everyday life and work. It also touches on related and complementary issues, such as the 'gallerisation' or economic exploitation of these forms of art and the curious similarities between the graffiti and advertising worlds. Unique and comprehensive, Copyright on the Street brings the 'voice from the street' into the debate over the legal and non-legal protection of street art and graffiti.

This is a book about food, philosophy, and intellectual property rights. Taken separately, these are three well-known subjects, but it is uncommon to consider them together. The book comprises 50 case studies, organized around eight themes: images; genericity and descriptiveness; language traps; procedures; menus, recipes, and creativity; boundaries; biotech; and empowerment. The introductory chapter frames the selection of cases and encourages readers to look beyond them, envisaging new lenses to look at food vis-à-vis intellectual property. The terrain encompassed is wide-ranging and reaches out to fine-grained aspects of food products, recipes, and cooking. Conceived for a wide scope of readers, the volume ultimately interrogates the links between food and cultural identity, bringing to the fore the ethical, political, and aesthetic worth of culinary arts and gastronomic experiences. This accessible book will be of value to scholars, students, practitioners, and others with interests in the areas of intellectual property, food law, and food studies.

"Protecting art in the street is an easy-to-understand book guiding street artists and graffiti writers through otherwise intricate legal issues concerning the protection of their artistic outputs"--Back cover

The recent Association Agreement signed between the European Union and Central American countries contains important intellectual property provisions. Some of these provisions have been inserted in the treaty to meet Central America states' needs, especially with reference to technology transfer issues, the protection of public health and the protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. (The numbers of the articles quoted in the paper are those referred to in the Agreement before the legal review. The numbering has changed after the legal review. See below: - Article 3 of the IP Chapter of the Association Agreement (before the legal review) is now Article 231 of the Association Agreement - Article XX of the Association Agreement (before the legal review) is now Article 55(3)(c) of the Association Agreement - Article 2(1) of the IP Chapter of the Association Agreement (before the legal review) is now Article 229(2)(a) of the Association Agreement - Article 2(2) of the IP Chapter of the Association Agreement (before the legal review) is now Article 229(2)(b) of the Association Agreement - Article 2(4) of the IP Chapter of the Association Agreement (before the legal review) is now Article 229(4) of the Association Agreement - Article 2(5) of the IP Chapter of the Association Agreement (before the legal review) is now Article 229(5) of the Association Agreement - Article 10 of the IP Chapter of the Association Agreement (before the legal review) is now Article 259 of the Association Agreement).

University intellectual property (IP) policies, and the accompanying strategies for incubation of IP via licensing and spin-outs, have not received much analysis from academic lawyers. Moreover, despite several successful examples of universities in the UK generating income from IP, not much is known about how transferable the UK model is when considered in the light of a middle-income developing economy such as Mexico. In this article we analyse critically some of the key tenets of IP policies at universities in the UK to identify what the key legal principles underpinning university innovation and commercialization are. We consider the potential application of these principles in Mexico, where so far only a limited number of universities have developed IP policies and strategies in line with the incubator model. We explain how universities in Mexico could implement these research findings in their own IP policies. We contend that the mere provision of an IP policy is not a panacea -- on its own it is insufficient for ensuring technology transfer and it may even encourage unnecessary patenting. Further investment in infrastructure and in establishing a culture of incubation and entrepreneurship is essential.