Intellectual Property Rights and Censorship: Impact on Freedom of Expression

This article discusses the impact of censorship on freedom of expression in the context of intellectual property rights. It explores the conflict between copyright law and the right to express oneself freely, and the role of the state in regulating censorship. The article also examines the concept of censorship and its impact on the creative industries, particularly the music and film industry.

nnin ead T T A P P T TRu g h : IN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
Intellectual Property Rights
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
Censorship has always been prevalent in the society and it is conceived to be a limitation
on the freedom of people. In the opinion of Feng (2017), censorship takes many forms in the
society and some viewers see that as positive and some view it as negative depending on the
impact it has on the group of people. In was further countered by McKeown (2016) that
copyright law mostly deals with the freedom and expression as well as ideas of authors and
creative writers. In the modern world corporate has started to expand and or the advent of
internet copyright has branched into online movies and songs. If there is a censorship on the
freedom of expression of an author it becomes difficult to implement Universal regulation of
freedom so that these rights are not hampered. Censorship is mostly concerned with putting
restrictions and control and to bring in about prapa censorship it is important to change the
political and the social structure. Copyright law helps an author to explore his talent and hard
work so that he can give incentive out of his intellect. Copyright laws are negative rights that
emanate out of copyright laws that try to protect the author so that no third party can gain any
advantage out of the hard work of the inventor. When it comes to censorship of copywriter gym
it can be held to be the limitation on the freedom of expression which is an inherent right of
every individual. In the opinion of Xu et al (2016) the artists and the right thinkers gain the profit
out of this hard work and when the censorship tries to restrict their rights there is a big challenge
that needs to be solved by the legislation and the state. The point of discussion was further
countered by Tehranjan (2015) where he said that the conflict that arises out of copyright law
and the freedom of expression of an author in the recent online environment.
The copyright regime term is the time frame and the sphere of copyright law that is
regulated by proper framework and also protected by the functions of the government. When a
state tries to implement censorship the whole am ensure that something positive comes out of the

2T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
restriction because there is a conflict situation in the state which needs to be controlled. In a
democracy when everybody is treated equally and people are born with rates it becomes very
difficult for the state to justify the censorship and having said that it is also imperative to note
down the creative freedom is equated with basic human rights. The status that is granted to every
individual under state is to express freely and without any fear. The term freedom of expression
is a fundamental right which has been approved by various International and national
agreements. In a developed world it is obvious to believe that individuals are born with the rights
to express themselves and it is a duty of the state to make sure that they do not feel objectified
and restricted for viewing their expressions (Callian et al 2018). The constitution of every
developed state believe that it is a basic right of every individual to express themselves and if the
state does not recognise that it is a failure on their part. Under article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights along with other rights in the nature of civil as well as political the
freedom of expression has been part of the same set of rights that ensure that humans are
accorded the power to put the points across (Lee 2017). Under the International agreements like
European Convention on Human Rights under the provisions of article 10 and the European
Union Charter of Fundamental Rights it has been a friend that recognising the basic rights of
humans is important to survive in a society and as a result of being in a democracy the state is
duty bound uphold the freedom to express their viewpoints without any fear. Copyright Grounds
the author both model as well as material. The moral rights arise out of the fact that the artistic
work of the author will help in the benefit of the society and it also has a welfare mechanism
attached to in the other hand the material is stick approach to the Corporate law is that then
sentence that arise out of the hard work as well as the literary scientific and artistic productions
the author gets remunerated fairly. Since copyright serves these rights which are very

3T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
fundamental to the basic Human Rights it can be said that the moral and material right of the
author also form part of the fundamental rights. Under the article 27(2) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Convention on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, the aim is to bridge the gap between human rights and intellectual property
rights so that the fundamental rights of the humans are recognised by all the branches of law.
Joyce et al (2016) held that the reason why there is a renewed interest in the understanding of the
relation between freedom of expression and copyright is that there is an emerging Trend with
exists more because of the digital world. In the age of internet it is becoming amply easy to
understand copyright law with the help of international online methods. In the case of McGraw-
Hill v Worth Publishers Court held that there was no dichotomy between the idea and expression
and also that human. This opinion faced major criticism from Ku (2017) wherein he opined that
copyright law itself promoted the concept to freedom of expression and therefore in the
framework of copyright Law expression terms are interlinked.
The creative Industries are thriving on the cultural output and the market is also trying to
understand the cultural goods and services letter provided by the authors. The creative industry
that has been specifically dealt with here to understand the impact of censorship is the music and
film industry. Censorship forces the creators to use terms which are acceptable by the
Government and also pass the test of restriction imposed in the guise of censorship. Directors,
movie makers as well as all the creative person involved in the making of movies are faced with
the limitation on their expressions and ideas. Movies and music are the best play to invigorate
creative thinking and in the wake of censorship, there is a limitation on that thinking as the
agencies force the authors to use words which are acceptable by the agency standards. Therefore

4T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
these restrictions put a limitation the free thinking which is a violation of the author’s
fundamental rights.
The whole concept of putting any restriction on this freedom of expression have been
termed as censorship have done by the state with the help of regulations and frameworks. Many
Scholars of the opinion that there exist no censorship and that freedom of expression is limitless.
These authors believe that the definition of censorship does not apply in the concept of freedom
of expression and that the state is in an absolute transparent position where they are not
exploiting the position of strength (Boyle 2017). Censorship can also be imposed by the state on
a common group of people oh sometimes it is imposed on an individual by the state. This whole
process is undertaken by the state to formulate their own ideas and to repress people from
carrying on their freedom. Censorship is defined as a traditional repression after rights of people
and this is mostly directed against persons or against the speech or content of the speech they
hold. This is an absolute power which the state tries to invoke. Therefore it can be perceived that
the entire purpose of censorship is to put up limitation and therefore initiative clash of powers
which is the deliberation of the present topic. Whenever there are extreme powers with a given to
an authority it is important that those power at clipped otherwise the society cannot function. The
functions of the state should not be treated as normal and traditional approach but should also be
treated as a serious attempt stop people from expressing their views and opinions. In the case of
limitation put on the rights of the authors, the creators of artistic work are faced with the
dilemma of expressing themselves or putting a stop on their artistic freedom. The resultant of
which is increased unemployment in the film and song industry, which is again plaguing artistic
freedom. Story (2017) stated that the problem that arises in cases of protection of copyright laws
on the internet is the failure to understand measures that should be taken to ensure that there are

5T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
no infringement of copyright laws and that adequate freedom is granted. Stokes further argued
that the whole purpose of granting rights to the author is to express their views openly is to make
sure that there are no ways to cut them short and there is harmonious existence of rights in the
society. The courts in the longest ride have been of the opinion that copyright law is the engine
for expressing freely and if the state intervenes to limit the right it shall be considered as a matter
of great concern. In the past whenever the state has tried to impose any censorship in the nature
of private regulations it has been termed as a violation of the basic fundamental rights of a
person. Freedom of expression should be considered a basic fundamental right and it should also
include the right to hold opinions and also if any information they deem fit for the Welfare of the
society (Dratler and McJohn 2017). The sharing of information is regardless of any restriction
and any force used to cut them down. The state shall not prevent the broadcasting of any show
and the state shall also not limit the licensing of any television or cinema Enterprise. It is the
right of the person to broadcast their movies and make it visible to people across the public
domain and the state shall not have any right stop the person from exercising his rights. This
restriction shall not be considered absolute and sometimes it may be considered justified keeping
in mind the necessities of a democratic society. Upholding the interest of the nation in preserving
the security territoriality as well as sovereignty if the state tries to exercise the discretion cannot
be considered a violation of Copyright laws. The exceptions to censorship rules are that it should
be done to uphold the safety of public and also to upkeep the law and order in the society.
Protecting the models of people and the reputation, the copyright laws should be kept in mind to
maintain certain authority on imposing restrictions and thereby promoting responsibilities in the
society.

6T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
Copyright laws have always faced problems with the freedom of expression and it has
become more prevalent in the age of censorship (Story 2017). The censorship is done mostly by
private authorities and they put a limitation on the rights of the authors to express themselves
freely. Authors are always faced with the dilemma of expressing themselves and exploiting their
creative freedom but the rights are not absolute and they are put against the restrictive
authorities. With the advent of copyright laws, there have been issues of distribution of the
information and they ensure that there is authorship over the information that is distributed by
the authors. Initially, the laws regarding information dissipation was not tough and authors could
exercise their creative freedom. Copyright laws are interested in granting property rights which
ensure that they are the exclusive properties of the authors and that they can exercise their
discretion in using them. If copyright is termed as property rights, in that case, the laws
attributable to property laws without the exceptions should also apply. Copyright laws are
negative exclusive rights which mean that there is an element of authorship, that is, they belong
exclusively and solely with the creators. It is considered a negative right as they ensure that there
is no unlawful infringement and that there is no individual measure which has been ensured to
help them get revenues (Stokes 2014). Copyright has always been treated as a privilege which
grants rights and therefore they are not given the status of privilege. If copyright is treated as
property, there are many regulations that come into play and therefor it becomes for the state to
make sure that restrictions apply to them. By giving copyright the distinction of property, authors
start to believe that they are coming under the framework of regulations that will help in
understanding their rights and that the problem of their freedom to expression has been
reconciled.

7T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
In the opinion of Joyce et al (2016) the Government in the latest regime also has started
to introduce many regulation stat give the notion that there are some safety issues that the authors
can issue and that their rights are safe with the Government. The situation is not the same and
that these are steps taken by the government to deviate the main issue into making the authors
believe in censorship. The idea expression dichotomy is another such safety precaution which
has been taken by the Government which means that the idea which is already in the mind of the
author shall not be protected. Further, Lee (2017) held that copyright does not subsist in ideas
and therefore if the idea of the author has not taken any substantial form, it shall not be treated as
a matter of protection. Till the time the idea of the author finds a substantial medium which is
concrete, the idea shall not treated as a matter of protection. Once the idea becomes and
expression, that is, it comes in the public domain, it becomes a matter of protection. Once an idea
takes the form of expression and becomes available to the public, the author can claim authorship
and also gain protection. If the author comes to know that there has been an infringement of his
rights, he can claim civil and criminal penalties against the person who has infringed it.
Therefore, this move by the legislation was perceived a good move to make sure that authors
believed that there shall be no infringement and that his rights are protected. This was also
another move to ensure that the expressions are protected from infringement and that the authors
can claim protection against any infringement and encroachment of their rights. Initially, in the
film and music industry, the mass media acted as a gate that prevented the authors to express
freely as there were many parameters against which their rights could be prevented. If the work
of the author was against public policy or if the writing had any chance to inflict hatred or
threaten the peace of the world, it could become be a problem to grant them the rights. In the
recent time, the scenario has changed as the media has been replaced by the internet. With the

8T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
advent of internet, the whole process of expressing freely has changed and therefore as a result of
that authors have become more protected. It was initially perceived that only authors could
exercise the rights and therefore the ordinary people did not have the chance to be protected from
copyright. The mass media acted as the gate keeper and therefor most literary works arising out
of film and movie industry and out of the literary thinking of the creators, did not make the cut to
be protected. With time, internet has ensured that the rights of ordinary people are protected of
they publish anything online. This is the new age copyright regime where the expressions are
protected by copyright laws.
In recent times, the scenario has drastically changed and the debates have surfaced
regarding what should be the best way to protect the rights of the authors. Digital technology has
started to govern everyday life and everything is shared online and therefore there is a serious
need for robust protection of rights on the internet. With the drastic proliferation of information
on the internet, it has gradually become difficult o control the spread of knowledge. That is
where the censorship plays a role. With the passage of time, everybody is becoming a
stakeholder in literary expertise and therefore it is becoming difficult to grant them the rights
they deserve. Though on one side there are many benefits to information sharing there are issues
regarding the checks on the way these rights are shared. In the age of digital world, it is
becoming difficult o stop the dissemination of knowledge. There is cost free distribution of
information and the authors are losing their worth in the process because internet cannot stop the
fast sharing of information.
In common parlance, it is believed that the authors will gain protection but in terms of
internet and information sharing, it has become so do difficult to reinstate the author’s
dictatorship. There is a copyright anarchy where there is no accountability form the Government

9T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
as to where the checks are to protect the authority. Copyright laws have been strengthened to
meet the requirements of the copyright law.
Censorship and artistic freedom have always been at daggers drawn and they have always
faced the wrath of the state induced limitations. Citing reasons of morality and public law and
order, it has always been perceived that if proper justification is not provided by the state, the
censorship shall not be allowed. Curbing an artist’s freedom to express freely has met the fate of
censorship as they have been believed to be done so in the wake of rising insecurities that the
state is facing in the modern times. Cinematographers are coming under the realm of artistic
freedom as they believe that they have the right to make movies that will attract the audience and
therefore they have the right to earn from that, in the wake of such rising issues where the
filmmakers cannot express themselves, it is becoming a herculean task to move forward with the
idea of freedom.
The absolute idea of selling movies without nay restriction has been viewed by movie
makers as utopian as there are hardly any instances when the author is not restricted to sell his
literary work without the fear of censorship. In a democracy, it is essential to state that everyone
has the right to freedom of expression. This freedom is a basic human right and it is inalienable
which cannot be taken away from them. Liberty is a concept which has been allowed to every
person in a democracy and therefore the people in the society should have the right to express
themselves. Freedom of speech and expression has always been perceived as a means of the
human force to put their points across. If the state stops and puts restriction on that, it shall
become unimaginable difficult to function in the society.
Copyright law has a humanistic approach which states that copyright shall also have a
welfare measure which will help the society in moving forward. The implications of not allowing

10T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
protection to copyright law will show results in the future when the authors will be scared to
express themselves freely and therefore the society will suffer as a result. Living in a civilized
society, it will be difficult to take into account the fact that the state shall exercise autonomy and
allow protection only when it deems fit. This discretionary power of the state in the form of
censorship is a big blot in information regime. Though the authors have been given broad rights,
but in the light of the restriction, it is essential to point out that the broad terms of the intellectual
protection is an illusion and that there are no protections that are necessary to move forward into
the domain of intellectual property rights.
Copyright law interferes with the freedom of speech and expression and therefore it is
essential to state that there are many constraints to the expression of an author. Ashdown v
Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] Ch 685 was the first case when the relation between copyright and
freedom of expression was adjudged. This case held that under the provisions of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 under Article
10 recognized that there ahs been a constraint on free speech and that though copyright tends to
protect the rights of the authors, there is a restriction on that by the state machinery. Again, in the
case of Harper & Row Publishers Inc v Nation Enterprises 471 US 539 (1 985), it was held by
the Supreme Court of the United States that though copyright tends to protect freedom of speech
and expression there are some restriction and there is no free flow of that freedom. The court was
of the opinion that there is suppression of that freedom and that the state fails to provide any
further incentives for ensuring freedom of speech.
Therefore, it can be stated that copyright law in one hand restricts and on the other also
promotes mechanism for dealing with the system within the state itself. Therefore, if state
censorship is equated with freedom of speech in the copyright regime, it can be said that there is

11T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
a similarity in which the restriction works and that is done mostly by making the restrictions on
the rights of the authors. This censorship and the restriction is contrary to the opinion of self
fulfilment as it becomes an unjustified imposition upon the rights of the author. European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 looks at the
fundamental rights of the author and holds that if the rights are controlled by the state by means
of censorship, it is against his basic rights and therefore it should be viewed as an unjustified
restriction and limitation. It was opined by Burkart (2015) that issues of fair dealing in copyright
is an essential feature and therefore both domestically as well as internationally, if there is a
restriction, the author can claim damages. There should also be appropriate consensus on the
ways the state is imposing such restrictions.
The autonomy that is executed should not be in line with the constitutional mandate
which states that no one can deny the author his right to self-enrichment and fulfilment and
therefore it should be of primary importance that there is free flow of expressions. This was
highly countered by Drahos (2016) where he said that rights that are given by the copyright law
are personal rights which are directly attributed to the author and in the world of raging
competitions, if the author is not made to express himself freely, it shall also be viewed that his
professional freedom is at stake. Expressing oneself is a core right that should be exercised by
everyone irrespective of their standing in the legal world and therefore if one has expressed
himself, there should not be an unreasonable limitation to that right. The problem with the
restriction is that if this restriction is ignored there will come a time when the authors will not be
expressive of their opinion and that will lead to an undemocratic world. Therefore, in the age of
copyright regime, international frameworks and legislations should aim to ensure that there are
proper laws against infringement but the laws should not be restrictive in nature so much so that

12T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
the people are afraid to state what they feel and believe (Burkart 2015). There might arise
situations where it is seen that if freedom to expression comes without any checks, there is
rampant copying but such situations only arise if there are no laws that stop infringers from
copying. Therefore, it is essential to reach balance between the two and make sure that the
purpose of the copyright law is accepted. The artistic freedom therefore should be understood
within the legal framework and to achieve constitutional protection, it should be made available
for everyone to take benefit from it.

13T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
Bibliography
Bently, L. and Sherman, B., 2014. Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Bhat, M.G., 2017. Trade related intellectual property rights for genetic resources: Implications
for developing countries.
Boyle, J., 2017. The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain.
In Copyright Law (pp. 63-104). Routledge.
Bradner, S. and Contreras, J., 2017. Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology (No. RFC
8179).
Burkart, P., 2015. Intellectual property rights. The International Encyclopedia of Digital
Communication and Society, pp.1-13.
Callinan, C., Scott, M., Ojo, A. and Whelan, E., 2018, April. How to Create Public Value
Through Open Data Driven Co-Creation: A Survey of the Literature. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 363-370).
ACM.
Commons, C., 2015. About the licenses.
COURSE, R. and SINGH, P.M., 2017. Intellectual Property Rights.
Drahos, P., 2016. A philosophy of intellectual property. Routledge.
Dratler Jr, J. and McJohn, S.M., 2017. Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and
Industrial Property. Law Journal Press.

14T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
Dutfield, G., 2017. Intellectual property rights and the life science industries: a twentieth
century history. Routledge.
Dutfield, G., 2017. Intellectual property rights and the life science industries: a twentieth
century history. Routledge.
Feng, L., 2017. Online video sharing: an alternative channel for film distribution? Copyright
enforcement, censorship, and Chinese independent cinema. Chinese Journal of
Communication, 10(3), pp.279-294.
Hagedoorn, J. and Zobel, A.K., 2015. The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in
open innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(9), pp.1050-1067.
Joyce, C., Ochoa, T.T., Carroll, M.W., Leaffer, M.A. and Jaszi, P., 2016. Copyright law (p. 85).
Carolina Academic Press.
Joyce, C., Ochoa, T.T., Carroll, M.W., Leaffer, M.A. and Jaszi, P., 2016. Copyright law (p. 85).
Carolina Academic Press.
Ku, R.S.R., 2017. The creative destruction of copyright: Napster and the new economics of
digital technology. In Copyright Law (pp. 207-268). Routledge.
Ku, R.S.R., 2017. The creative destruction of copyright: Napster and the new economics of
digital technology. In Copyright Law (pp. 207-268). Routledge.
Lee, J.Y., 2017. Censorship of Preaching and Public Opinion under Henry VIII. Xin Shixue (New
History), 28(2).
May, C., 2015. The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures.
Routledge.

15T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S
May, C., 2015. The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures.
Routledge.
McKeown, M.M., 2016. Censorship in the Guise of Authorship: Harmonizing Copyright and the
First Amendment. Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop., 15, p.1.
Moore, A., 2017. Intellectual property and information control: philosophic foundations and
contemporary issues. Routledge.
Post, R.C., 2017. Rereading Warren and Brandeis: Privacy, property, and appropriation.
In Privacy (pp. 125-158). Routledge.
Stokes, S., 2014. Digital copyright: law and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Story, A., 2017. Burn Berne: 1 Why the Leading International Copyright Convention must be
Repealed. In Copyright Law (pp. 3-41). Routledge.
Tehranian, J., 2015. The New Censorship. Iowa L. Rev., 101, p.245.
von Bismarck, A. and Berger, M., 2015. Intellectual Property Rights. Wiley Encyclopedia of
Management, pp.1-3.
Weaver, K.D., 2015. Censorship of Digital Resources Worldwide. In Encyclopedia of
Information Science and Technology, Third Edition (pp. 2178-2186). IGI Global.
Xu, C., Chen, S., Su, J., Yiu, S.M. and Hui, L.C., 2016. A Survey on Regular Expression
Matching for Deep Packet Inspection: Applications, Algorithms, and Hardware Platforms. IEEE
Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 18(4), pp.2991-3029.

16T T A P P T TIN ELELC U L RO ER Y RIGH S