APPROPRIATING CREATIVE WORKS PROTECTED
BY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
The ownership, either public or private, is an expression for appropriating goods. Consequently,
the appropriation takes the form of private (i.e. p rivate property) and common forms (i.e. public
property). The common law property defines appropriation as „a deliberate act of acquisition of
something, often without the permission of the owner”, but the intellectual p roperty rights do not
protect goods. Particularly in this case „the object” of appropriation does not represent a „res nullius”
simply because the intellectual property right arises from the act of creation, therefore the
appropriation of somebody else’s creation becomes equivalent with stealing (plagiarism).
Consequently, if we are to admit that the authors have a right of ownership over them, then ownership
in intellectual property law has (it mu st have) other manifestations than those known and accepted in
the common law of property.
Keywords: appropriation, goods, intellectual rights, property, authors.
1. Difficulty of properly qualifying
intellectual property rights and its
consequence on the „ownership” and
control over intellectual creations*
Trying to determine and clarify the
legal nature of the rights the authors have
over their intellectual creations, we should
firstly consider the concept of
„appropriation” and treat it with special
attention. First of all we should d raw
attention to the fact that most of
lawyers/jurists use the concept as a default
one, not taking into consideration any
particular explanation or d emarcation. This
comes from the customary use of
„appropriation” in the common law of
property. However, considering „
appropriation” within the frame of the
special right of authors over their
* PhD Candidate, “Nicolae Titulescu” University, Bucharest (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
This is the case of The Libertarians, The Pirate Party in Germany and the Nordic Countries, but also of many
challengers, quite vocal lately, supporting the current known as „copyleft”, in opposition to copyright, as shown.
intellectual creations, we must delineate
special uses of the concept.
Accordingly, „intellectual property
law” is seen as a particular kind of law
because its nature is difficult to be
determined and stated categorically despite
the fact that it has been enshrined as such in
both conventional law and le gal systems of
the countries in continental Europe. The
intellectual property law is still referred to
as controversial as long as disputes relati ng
to it have never ceased or been ex hausted
not even nowadays - neither in terms o f
recognizing its existence, le gitimacy and
necessity, nor in terms of its legal nature.
There are opinions that it should not be
recognized at all for the reason that
copyright is the enemy of access to
information and knowledge and, ther efore,
is an enemy of freedom
From its early beginning, in France,
the country that speaks a nd writes the most