Law & Humanities Blog |
| Indigenous Peoples and the Protection of Intellectual Property: The Case of the Zia Posted: 28 Oct 2011 10:28 AM PDT Stephanie B. Turner, Yale Law School, is publishing The Case of the Zia: Moving Beyond Intellectual Property Laws To Protect Cultural Rights, in the Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property. Here is the abstract. This Article focuses on an ongoing dispute in trademark law: the case of the Zia. Located near Albuquerque, New Mexico, this Native American pueblo has been using its sacred sun symbol in religious ceremonies since 1200 C.E. The symbol now appears on the New Mexico State flag, letterhead, and license plate, and on commercial products ranging from chemical fertilizers to portable toilets. The tribe claims that the State appropriated the symbol without permission in 1925, and that the continued use of the symbol by various parties dilutes its sacred meaning and disparages the tribe in violation of Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act. This Article tells the Zia story, focusing on the harms the tribe faces when others appropriate its symbol and the possible solutions. It concludes by suggesting that indigenous groups like the Zia should move beyond intellectual property laws in the fight to protect their cultural rights. |
Download the article from SSRN at the link.
Law, Narrative, and Health Care
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 10:04 AM PDT
Kenneth D. Chestek, Indiana University School of Law (Indianapolis) has published Competing Stories: A Case Study of the Role of Narrative Reasoning in Judicial Decisions. Here is the abstract.
Download the paper from SSRN at the link.Within minutes after President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (derisively referred to by some as the "Obamacare" law), the lawsuits started flying. Literally dozens of suits were filed all across the country. Some were frivolous, but many others raised serious issues of federalism and the reach of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
Of the initial spate of lawsuits, ultimately five were decided by various trial courts on the merits of the Commerce Clause issue. Three judges found the law constitutional, and two others found it unconstitutional. But since the issue is almost purely a question of law (it is the same Commerce Clause and the same body of Supreme Court precedent interpreting it in all five cases), the question arises: why did these cases come out differently?
The mainstream media has seized upon a political explanation: the three judges who found the law constitutional were appointed by Democratic Presidents, while the two judges who found the law unconstitutional were appointed by Republican Presidents. This article challenges that assumption, and suggests a more nuanced explanation: each of the plaintiffs in these cases had different stories to tell. The article explores narrative reasoning (defined as norm-based thinking instead of pure rule-based reasoning) as a possible explanation for the divergent results in these cases.
| You are subscribed to email updates from Law & Humanities Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
