The word counterfeit often denotes a product that is fake and of poor quality. Dictionaries have defined the word to mean an imitation intended to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine.Breaking down this definition, counterfeit goods are intended to trick consumers to believe that that which they purchase are genuine goods; whereas they are unauthorized copies of branded goods presented as the authentic goods. For example, Christian Louboutin high heels are well known for having red bottoms; the sale of high heels with red bottoms and passing them off as Louboutin shoes is a good example of counterfeiting.
When the French government purchased the first photography patent, photography was declared ‘a gift to free the word’. These words would turn out to be somewhat prophetic, as photography would go on to have a resounding impact on the world. For instance, photography played a role in sensitizing people on the horrors of war, since for the first time, citizens of different countries were able to actually see the ravages of war that had before then seemed so far away. 180 years later, it is interesting to note how the law concerning photography has developed in Kenya. Does the state of applicable laws show our esteem for this gift or are we stifling it? In this blog, we discuss the law on photography in three broad themes: copyright; image rights and privacy; and security.
Editor’s Note: Andrew Ngurumi recently wrote this post on the blog on the inclusion of farmers in Kenya’s agricultural policy. The post generated healthy discussion and an insightful question arose from the debate. One of our readers asked, what should policymakers do? Specifically in light of Andrew’s article.Here is his analysis.
Traditional Knowledge (TK) is any knowledge originating from a local or traditional community that is the result of intellectual activity and insight in a traditional context, including know-how, skills, innovations, practices and learning, where the knowledge is embodied in the traditional lifestyle of a community and is passed on from one generation to another. TK often forms part of a community’s cultural and spiritual identity, technical, ecological and medical knowledge as well as biodiversity-related knowledge.Folklore expressions (Folklore) on the other hand, are any forms, whether tangible or intangible, in which traditional culture and knowledge are expressed, appear or are manifested.
Despite clear definitions, there has
been a drumming debate whether TK and Folklore should be protected. If not,
why? and if yes, how? Would it be through the intellectual property (IP) regime
or any other mechanisms? The prevailing and ongoing argument is captured in part
The author posits that there is already a starting point to finding a way to protect TK and Folklore given their special nature. This is by rethinking the Swakopmund Protocol as a model law and a sui generis system for African countries to come up with corresponding national laws. Sui generis basically means that of its own kind or class; peculiar.
As highlighted in our previous post (here), the Strathmore Law Clinic (website here) began an initiative known as the Ubunifu Initiative, whose main focus is promoting the effective use and exploitation of creativity and innovation through the development and sensitization of intellectual property law and rights. The second session happened on the 30th of August, 2019, where we had one of our own, Ms. Caroline Wanjiru, being a panelist and sharing her expertise.
The focus was still on creatives; in particular musicians, authors and performing artists. The discussions focused on copyrights, copyright protection and related rights of the respective groups’ works. The session began with the panelists giving a brief discussion of intellectual property and intellectual property rights; how to obtain intellectual property rights protection in particular copyright and the associated rights. Questions on fair dealing and fair use; publishing rights; joint ownership/authorship of works; transfer of rights through assignment and licensing; jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement were tackled. Through the CIPIT Blog, we shall endeavor to inform on some of these issues in detail in our continuing IP series.
There are two (2) more sessions (further details) if you wish to attend simply send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org to RSVP. Specify whether you wish to attend all the sessions or, if not, which specific sessions you wish to attend.