Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks
Stealing is a crime.
Misappropriating ownership rights is also patently wrong.
Such clear-cut statements are, however, not possible while dealing with intellectual property.
Recently, according to newspaper reports, there have been attempts to claim ownership rights over yoga. Ridiculous as it may sound, the case requires analysis and is not an open-and-shut case.
For, Bikram (the person claiming rights) isn't claiming rights over yoga in toto, as has been made out by some reports, but only over a specific sequence of poses in a high temperature room. He claims ownership and regulatory rights over usage of this specific sequence of poses, which he calls "Bikram Yoga".
He has two arguments in favour of his case. One, he has created something new out of the existing common knowledge. And according to U.S. copyright laws, a sufficiently creative compilation of common knowledge can be given a copyright. He uses a powerful analogy - Do, Re, Mi, Fa are a part of common knowledge, but a song created out of them is not a part of public property and can be given a copyright. Similarly, using yogic postures to create something new can be given a copyright. According to him, he doesn't want what has happened to Pilates to happen to Yoga.
His second argument is that a holistic health process like the one he has created, needs a regulatory mechanism and arbitrary copying can be dangerous. Just as doctors need certification, anyone teaching his sequence needs his certification.
Analogies can be quite deceptive, and his first argument seems very fishy. By equating yogic postures to mere musical notes and his creation to a song, he has deliberately reduced the status of the postures per se. Yogic postures are, however, much more than notes, they are like compositions in themselves. Can we get a copyright over a sequence of Bach and Mozart compositions? Especially when such compilations are predicted to be of significant public and commercial interest? How is a court supposed to determine his creativity in putting the poses in a sequence and judge the sequence in relation to actual poses themselves? Shouldn't the court lean towards not granting a copyright? How much the name "Bikram Yoga" is benefiting from the word "Yoga" has to be understood clearly.
His second argument, once again, isn't easy to judge. How can one who hasn't experienced his sequence judge the need for its regulation? Does it really need his regulation, given the fact that the basic elements have been in use for millenia?
"Art of Living Foundation" also has a trademark (not copyright) over "Sudarshan Kriya". Many will vouch for the strong effect "Kriya" has and need for proper regulation (and hence a trademark) over who teaches the breathing technique.
So it seems that courts and litigations are not the proper means of settling these issues. At least the basic statutes governing the issues need to be reworked completely, giving enough weight to spreading knowledge. Since the knowledge is cultural, cultural aspects need to given sufficient weight. Someone versed only in legal technicalities is not competent to judge the case.
Misappropriating ownership rights is also patently wrong.
Such clear-cut statements are, however, not possible while dealing with intellectual property.
Recently, according to newspaper reports, there have been attempts to claim ownership rights over yoga. Ridiculous as it may sound, the case requires analysis and is not an open-and-shut case.
For, Bikram (the person claiming rights) isn't claiming rights over yoga in toto, as has been made out by some reports, but only over a specific sequence of poses in a high temperature room. He claims ownership and regulatory rights over usage of this specific sequence of poses, which he calls "Bikram Yoga".
He has two arguments in favour of his case. One, he has created something new out of the existing common knowledge. And according to U.S. copyright laws, a sufficiently creative compilation of common knowledge can be given a copyright. He uses a powerful analogy - Do, Re, Mi, Fa are a part of common knowledge, but a song created out of them is not a part of public property and can be given a copyright. Similarly, using yogic postures to create something new can be given a copyright. According to him, he doesn't want what has happened to Pilates to happen to Yoga.
His second argument is that a holistic health process like the one he has created, needs a regulatory mechanism and arbitrary copying can be dangerous. Just as doctors need certification, anyone teaching his sequence needs his certification.
Analogies can be quite deceptive, and his first argument seems very fishy. By equating yogic postures to mere musical notes and his creation to a song, he has deliberately reduced the status of the postures per se. Yogic postures are, however, much more than notes, they are like compositions in themselves. Can we get a copyright over a sequence of Bach and Mozart compositions? Especially when such compilations are predicted to be of significant public and commercial interest? How is a court supposed to determine his creativity in putting the poses in a sequence and judge the sequence in relation to actual poses themselves? Shouldn't the court lean towards not granting a copyright? How much the name "Bikram Yoga" is benefiting from the word "Yoga" has to be understood clearly.
His second argument, once again, isn't easy to judge. How can one who hasn't experienced his sequence judge the need for its regulation? Does it really need his regulation, given the fact that the basic elements have been in use for millenia?
"Art of Living Foundation" also has a trademark (not copyright) over "Sudarshan Kriya". Many will vouch for the strong effect "Kriya" has and need for proper regulation (and hence a trademark) over who teaches the breathing technique.
So it seems that courts and litigations are not the proper means of settling these issues. At least the basic statutes governing the issues need to be reworked completely, giving enough weight to spreading knowledge. Since the knowledge is cultural, cultural aspects need to given sufficient weight. Someone versed only in legal technicalities is not competent to judge the case.
posted by Anand at 11:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home