A Quote by Jenna Wortham

The types of ideas protected by intellectual-property law typically don't include a clever catchphrase on a Vine or a film idea in a tweet. — © Jenna Wortham
The types of ideas protected by intellectual-property law typically don't include a clever catchphrase on a Vine or a film idea in a tweet.
The alternative to intellectual property is straightforward: intellectual products should not be owned, as in the case of everyday language. That means not owned by individuals, corporations, governments, or the community as common property. It means that ideas are available to be used by anyone who wants to.
I am a strong believer that intellectual property rights need to be protected.
I still really love the world and the universe and the mythology of 'Halo.' If I was given control, I would really like to do that film. But that's the problem. When something pre-exists, there's this idea of my own interpretation versus 150 other people involved with the film's interpretation of the same intellectual property.
I support copyright. I mean it is intellectual property, it is the thought process of someone and those things should always be protected.
A family film is a very particular and explicit form. Family films typically include adult principles that are moral, but they should be as intelligent, funny, and intriguing as any other film.
There are people out there who don't see value in intellectual property, and so they're always going to have a problem if there are lawsuits involving intellectual property.
For the mass of men the idea of artistic creation can only be expressed by an idea unpopular in present discussions - the idea of property... Property is merely the art of the democracy... One would think, to hear people talk, that the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers were on the side of property. But obviously they are the enemies of property; because they are enemies of their own limitations.
We believe in cures; we're a quick-fix country, and we drive forward, and we eat up what we have extremely fast in terms of natural resources and also ideas and intellectual property. We're kind of wilfully stupid a lot of the time, anti-intellectual.
It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb (non Muslims) is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property.
The corporate community understands the need for rules. Indeed, it argues for regulation to protect intellectual property, physical property rights, and contract law. So why does it oppose global regulation to protect people and the environment?
The first duty of a government is to maintain law and order so that the life, property, and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.
You cannot steal somebody's intellectual property. Law and justice protect.
Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer, I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business.
In the epic war over Silicon Valley's intellectual property, Bill Gates was on the side of licensing copyright and robust protections for intellectual property. He wasn't on the side of the hackers, and he didn't want information to be free.
For us, not cooperating in the monopoly regimes of intellectual property rights and patents and biodiversity - saying "no" to patents on life, and developing intellectual ideas of resistance - is very much a continuation of Gandhian satyagraha. It is, for me, keeping life free in its diversity.
So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in ideas that we don't even notice how monstrous it is to deny ideas to a people who are dying without them.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!