The term “intellectual property” (IP) denotes the specific legal rights which authors, inventors and other IP holders may hold and exercise, not the intellectual work itself. Under the intellectual property laws, the holder of one of these abstract “properties” has certain exclusive rights concerning the creative work, commercial symbol, or invention. The basic rationale for intellectual property laws is to somehow protect the inventor, author, or creator rights. However, various school of thought are critical on the “intellectual property” concept and how to deal with it; indeed, some argue that use of the term “property” in this context is itself misleading. Some characterise IP laws as intellectual protectionism and critics, like those belonging to the free culture movement, categorize it as intellectual monopoly, and argue that public interest is harmed by protectionist legislation such as copyright extension, software and business method patents. Like other forms of property, intellectual property (or rather the exclusive IP rights) can be transferred or licensed to third parties. But copyright gives its holders the exclusive right to control reproduction or adaptation of their works for a certain period of time (a few decades, usually). A fascinating alternative would be the copyright to expire with the holders, like in the ni9e’s Intellectual Property Donor action. Based on the assumption that current copyright law prevents anyone from building upon others’ creativity for years after their death, the aim of the project is to make an intellectual property donation into the public domain. To make sure IP holders’ ideas outlive their body, ni9e invite holders to download and print their own IP Donor sticker, fill it and stick it on some other ID card. It becomes a sort of testament of his/her intellectual production of a whole life, keeping it alive and functioning. Will this practice become popular like organ donation?

Valentina Culatti