Our Fall 2023 Issue—Volume 13, Number 1—takes a step back to reimagine foundations of IP law as the source of, and potentially the solution to, modern problems.
First, Professor Zachary Catanzaro questions the foundations of American copyright law—incentivization. Professor Catanzaro challenges the utility of incentivizing authors with copyright doctrine in the era of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). His work takes a deep dive into creativity and its driving forces, and asks whether incentives will still be necessary as generative AI drives labor costs of production down toward zero.
Second, Jason Wu imagines a collective propertarian reform for data governance and ownership. The article examines consumer credit markets to bust myths about AI’s role in alleviating inequality, and argues that we must depart from the framework of neoliberalism to achieve equality in credit underwriting. Through the lens of consumer credit reforms, Wu outlines the history of neoliberal policy, and argues that reform is necessary to protect consumers so that algorithmic harm does not dominate the digital age.
Third, Albert Simonyan aims to tackle a growing problem with an often forgotten solution—how the foreign equivalents doctrine can solve issues that globalization poses on the international trademark regime. Simonyan asks whether the inconsistent application of the foreign equivalents doctrine globally harms immigrants, businesses, and ethnic enclaves. The article proposes new language for the TRIPS Agreement to expand and cement the doctrine.
Fourth, Alexa Browning offers a note that asks the question we ask every October—is Freddy Krueger a scène à faire? Browning takes a look at the copyrightability of horror movie villains. Through a nuanced analysis of the foundations of the major players in America’s favorite horror franchises, Browning isolates what makes these characters identifiable. She then questions what is truly unique about the characters and whether courts would and should provide protection for the characters in an infringement suit.
Finally, Charles Hill’s note analyzes whether WWE wrestlers qualify for the statutory labor exemption. Hill details the history of unionization efforts in wrestling and the effects of wrestlers’ status as independent contractors on their work. The note then demonstrates the need for the exemption and a path to unionization for wrestlers given a recent decision in the First Circuit.
You may view and download a PDF of the complete issue here.
Sincerely,
Joseph Salmaggi
Editor-in-Chief
NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law