Managing a Global Team Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Managing a Global Team - Term Paper Example This induced resentment towards the manager as well as the whole company. UAE team also complained that they did not have much face-to-face time with their immediate boss, James. Direct contact is important with the team leader no matter how geographically apart the two ends are. Employees need to be appreciated and motivated by their leader rather than just designated their tasks. James was not able to manage the difference in time zones while conducting his weekly meeting. Although it was a good approach to get everyone together on one platform once a week but it was not handled in the most appropriate manner. The time of the meeting forced the Indian team to work till 22:00 at times. This proved to make their days excessively long when their day already started as early as 6:30 IST. The early morn presence was also important because they had to be briefed about the work before the US office closed down. James was not able to see everyone’s problems therefore he was not able to provide them effective solutions. ‘We against them’ attitude was generated among the team members as a result of their issues and resentment. Another mistake that was done by James in terms of discussing issues was that all the team members were not made a part of the discussion in the emails. The US team would be a part of the email threads that would discuss important matters. The other teams complained that they were the last ones to be included in the emails to simply notify them of the solutions and decisions that had taken place. This way they did not get a chance to become a part of the discussions and just had to accept the solution that would be decided by James and US team. This kind of an approach is not suitable in the management of global teams since email correspondence is one the most common modes of communication. The team members are not able to meet in their daily routines in the cafeterias etc to discuss

Road to Independence Notes Essay Example for Free

Road to Independence Notes Essay People are reconsidering the policy of colonialism. 1. After WWII, people questioned whether dictatorship was a good idea. 2. â€Å"All nations should be free from the power of other nations. † 3. Keeping colonies had a high cost. It wasn’t worth it. 4. Colonized people pressed harder for freedom. Ex: British-held India II. A Movement Toward Independence A. The Indian’s strive to freedom intensifies. 1. British had power over India for 2 centuries. 2. Britain drafted Indians into WWII in 1939 without the consent of the the colony’s representatives. . Gandhi launched civil disobedience and many who followed were arrested. 4. To gain favor of the Indians, Britain promised government changes after WWII, but didn’t offer freedom. Besides colonialism, India struggles with internal conflict. 1. They have religious disagreements. 350 million Hindus 100 million Muslims 2. The Congress Party (aka Indian National Congress: India’s national political party) was made up mostly of Hindus, and a few Muslims. C. The Muslim League is created. 1. The Muslim League (1906) is the organization against the mostly Hindu Congress Party, aimed to protect Muslim interest. . (The leader) Muhammad Ali Jinnah asked all Muslims to leave the Congress party. He would not accept independence from Britain if it meant staying under Hindu rule. III. Freedom Brings Turmoil A. The decision of who receives power is being made. 1. The British lost much wealth after WWII, and was ready to turn over their power, since keeping up with colonies was costly. 2. The power will either be given to Hindus or Muslims. B. Muslims resisted Hindu domination. 1. Rioting broke out and in 1946, there were 20,000 casualties in a 4 day clash in Calcutta. C. Pakistan was created. 1. To maintain peace, Britain decided to partition (division of Indian religions into separate nations; idea first brought up by Muslims) India. 2. North western and eastern part of India became Pakistan which was dominated by Muslims. D. Everything in India was being divided. 1. British granted India and Pakistan a month of independence in July 16, 1947. 2. Princes had to decide which nation they’d join. 3. The civil service (courts, military, railways, police) was divided. 4. The differing religions had to decide where to go. E. One million people died during the move to their new nation. 1. Muslims killed Sikhs moving to India. 2. Sikhs and Hindus killed Muslims going to Pakistan. 3. Gandhi went to the Indian capital (Delhi) to ask for mercy, but was killed by a hindu extremist in January 30, 1948. F. Hindus and Muslims fight for Kashmir. 1. Kashmir is at the northern point of India next to Pakistan. 2. It had a Hindu ruler, but the majority of people living there was Muslim. 3. Fighting continued until UN arranged cease-fire in 1949. 4. One-third went to Pakistan (Muslims) and the rest to India (Hindus). IV. Modern India A. India has become the world’s largest democracy. 1. India gained independence in August 15, 1947. 2. Jawaharlal Nehru (the independent nation’s first prime minister) addressed India’s freedom. B. Nehru is the leader. 1. He served the first 17 years of India’s independence as leader. 2. He was a devoted follower of Gandhi. 3. He emphasized democracy, unity, and economic modernization, and became very popular with all Indian groups. C. Nehru pushed India forward. 1. He led newly independent nations into making alliances with other non aligned nations. 2. He reorganized the states by language and pushed for industrialization and social reform. 3. He raised the status of those in lower class (lower castes and women). D. A new leader came. 1. Nehru died in 1964. 2. His daughter, Indira Gandhi, became prime minister in 1966, left office, and was re elected in 1980. E. Challenges set on Indira caused more violent acts and death. 1. Sikh extremists wanted an independent state. 2. The Golden Temple was the Sikh’s religious center. 3. The Sikhs attacked symbols of Indian authority, so Indians troops overran the Golden Temple, killing 500 Sikhs and destroying sacred property. 4. Indira was gunned down by Sikh bodyguards and another murder spree occurred, killing thousands of Sikhs. . Indira’s son, Rajiv, became prime minister, but lost power because of corruption. He was then killed. F. Atal Bihari Vajpayee faced problems. 1. The leader of the nationalist party of India, Vajpayee, faced challenges of overpopulation and strife among religions. 2. The struggle between India and Pakistan was bad, now that they became nuclear powers. India exploded a nuclear device in 1974. For 24 years, India improved nuclear capability in private. In 1998, 5 nuclear tests were conducted. Pakistanis also showed they had nuclear capabilities. The nuclear weapons of both rival groups became an international concern, especially because of Hindus and Muslims continuous struggle over Kashmir. V. Pakistan Copes with Freedom A. Pakistan was already very turbulent and had differences between West Pakistan and East Pakistan. B. The two regions of Pakistan struggled with each other. 1. A tidal wave hit East Pakistan and killed 266,000 residents in 1970, calling for international aid that West Pakistan was not eager in giving. 2. East Pakistan protested and called to end all ties with West Pakistan. C. Pakistan undergoes its own partition. 1. On March 26, 1971, East Pakistan became Bangladesh. 2. Civil war broke out. Indians sided with Bangladesh and Pakistan surrendered. 3. 1 million people died. 4. One-seventh of area and one-half of the population in Pakistan was lost. D. Pakistan is instable. 1. After the death of the first governor general of India, the nation had no strong leader and went through many military coups. First in 1958 by Ali Bhutto Second in 1977 by General Zia Third Benazir Bhutto, Ali’s daughter, became prime minister. Fourth, Sharif in 1997. VI. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka Struggle A. Bangladesh faces many problems. 1. War brought economic and communication issues in Bangladesh. 2. Sheik Mujibur Rahman became the first prime minister of Bangladesh. Interested more in power than making reparations 3. Bangladesh tries to become democratic and fraud and corruption was common. Recently, it has been more stable and Begum Khaleda Zia became prime minister in 2001. 4. Natural disasters were troublesome. Bangladesh (low-lying) is subject to cyclones, tidal waves, massive storms which floods lands, ruins crops, takes lives, and homes. 5. Rapid growth in population put stress on the economy. There is civil strife in Sri Lanka. . Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamil Hindus make up the two main groups in Sri Lanka. 2. Tamils wanted to become a separate Tamil nation and violence occurred in order to do so. Rajiv Gandhi and the president on Sri Lanka made an agreement that called Indian troops to disarm Tamil rebels. A civil war between Tamils and Sri Lankans still exists. New Nations in Africa: Chapter 34 Section 3 I. Setting the Stage A. Africa was also a nation victim to colonization. B. Like India, they were unwilling to return to colonization after WWII, so they also won their independence and went on to creating new African nations. II. Achieving Independence A. A movement is made for Black Heritage. 1. The French-speaking Africans and West Indians grew pride for traditional Africa. 2. The Negritude movement (movement to celebrate African culture, heritage, and values) was formed. B. WWII changed the views of colonies and colonizers, which helped Africa gain independence from 1950s-1960s. 1. The African joined Europeans in WWII to defend freedom, and were unwilling to return to colonization. 2. The European colonizers developed morale and wondered whether it was a good idea to still hold colonies. In addition to morale, maintaining colonies was costly and wasn’t viewed as something worth losing money for. C. Africa achieved independence in a unique way. 1. Unlike other colonized areas that pushed for independence, Africa was colonized indirectly and directly. Those who were ruled indirectly were able to enjoy limited self-rule and were ruled by local officials. They achieved independence more easily. Those ruled directly were governed at all levels by foreigners and did not have any self rule. To get independence, they had to fight wars. D. Africa struggled even after they gained their independence. . They had to start from scratch: creating a new gov. , and establishing postcolonial economy. 2. Internal conflicts made it hard create stable nations. When colonized by Europeans, Africa was separated by random and many tribes who shared the same culture were divided and enclosed with rival groups, causing violence. III. Ghana Leads the Way A. The Gold Coast, a British colony, achieves full independence. 1. The Gold Coast (South of the Sahara) achieved independence, so British allowed for Africans to be nominated for legislative council. 2. However, they wanted full freedom and created a group. . Kwame Nkrumah (leader of the nonviolent group) organized strikes and boycotts, and was also imprisoned many times, (starting in 1947) eventually being able to liberate the Gold Coast from the British government. B. Good intentions called for opposition against Nkrumah. 1. The Gold Coast became Ghana (from the Ghana Kingdom of Africa) after it received its independence in 1957. 2. Nkrumah, th e first prime-minister and president for life, pushed for industrialization by building new roads, schools, and health facilities. 3. His programs were too costly, and people began to oppose him. C. Ghana still continues to struggle. 1. Nkrumah was criticized for neglecting economic issues. 2. When in China (1966) he was replaced by the police and army in Ghana. 3. The power shifts between civilian and military rule, and Ghana struggles economically. 4. 2000 marks the first open election in Ghana. IV. Fighting for Freedom A. The British is forced to allow Kenyan self-government. 1. The British were unwilling to give Kenyans independence because they’ve taken over prized farmland in the northern highlands of Kenya. 2. The Kenyans had 2 developments which forced British to surrender. Jomo Kenyatta’s (Kenyan nationalist) strong leadership. The Mau Mau, a secret society of mostly native Kenyan farmers forced out of the highlands by British people. B. The Mau Mau fight for independence. 1. Guerilla tactics were used to push out the British from the highlands. 2. Kenyatta had no connection to the Mau Mau but did not stop them from fighting for their freedom. 3. Kenyatta was imprisoned for about a decade. 4. Kenya was granted independence in 1963, however, 10,00 Africans and 100 settlers died. C. After gaining independence, Kenya still faced some struggles from poor leadership. 1. Kenyatta became the president and worked to reunite various groups in his nation, but he died in 1978. 2. He was succeeded by a weak leader, Daniel arap Moi. 3. Under Moi’s leadership was opposition to his one-party rule, corruption, and conflicts between ethnicities killing hundreds and making thousands homeless. 4. He left office in 2002, and a new party gained power through elections. D. Algeria wins independence through battle. 1. Algeria had a population of 1 million French and 9 million Arabs and Berber Muslims. 2. French did not want to share political power with the natives even after WWII. . The FLN (Algerian National Liberation Front) would fight for freedom, and upon hearing this, the French sent half a million troops to fight the FLN. 4. The FLN won and gained independence in July 1962. E. Uncertainty within Algeria calls for civil war. 1. The FLN leader, Ahmed Ben Bella, becomes president and attempts to make Algeria follow socialism, but is overthrown. 2. From 19 65-1988, Algeria tried to modernize, but failed. Religious fundamentalists wanted to make Algeria an Islamic state because they were dissatisfied with the current government and high unemployment rates. 3. The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won elections in 1990 and 1991, but the government and army refused the results. 4. Civil war broke out between Islamic militants and the government, and goes on and off until this day. V. Civil War in Congo and Angola A. The people of Congo were unprepared for independence, and it led to turmoil. 1. Belgians colonized and plundered Congo taking all its riches and resources such as rubber and copper. 2. They gave no social services to the natives of Congo, and did not prepare them for independence. 3. They granted Congo (aka Zaire from 1971-1997) independence in 1960, which cause upheaval, and civil war. B. Congo goes through two leaders. 1. Years of civil war sprung up, and Mobutu Sese Seko (aka Colonel Joseph Mobutu) seized power in 1965. He renamed Congo to Zaire and ruled it for 32 years. He held control over Zaire with force, one-party rule, and bribing supporters with gifts. He withstood rebellions. 2. In 1997, he was overthrown by Laurent Kabila (rebel leader). Zaire was renamed The Democratic Republic of Congo. C. Kabila wasn’t the leader people hoped for, and a new leader rises. 1. He became president and promised a democracy, but never delivered it. 2. Civil war broke out again, and rebel groups wanted to overthrow Kabila. . He was assassinated by a bodyguard in 2001. 4. Joseph Kabila, his son, took power and pushed for peace. 5. Rebels stopped rebelling in 2002 in hope that the peace may come. D. Angola (South West of Congo) fought for independence. 1. Angola was ruled by the Portuguese who were unwilling to let go of their colony. 2. An independence movement broke out and Portugal sent 50,000 troops to end it, which wiped out half of Portugal’s budget. 3. The cost of war and the war’s opposition in Portugal called for them to withdraw from Angola in 1975. E. Civil war broke out in Angola. 1. Angola became a new nation, and the MPLA (Communist leaning â€Å"Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola†) declared itself as the government. 2. Rebel groups fought against the government for power. 3. 50,000 Cuban troops and Soviet Union supported the MPLA. 4. South Africa and the U. S. supported the UNITA (the major opposition to the MPLA; â€Å"National Union for the Total Independence of Angola†) 5. The MPLA and UNITA abandoned many cease-fire agreements, but in 2002, a peace accord was agreed to and the civil war ended. Conflicts in the Middle East: Chapter 34 Section 4 I. Setting the Stage A. By the end of WWII, Jewish finally gained its own state, which proved to have bad consequences. 1. The Jewish gained a state that was located by the Mediterranean Sea. 2. It consisted of mostly Arabs who rejected the creation of a Jewish state. 3. Palestinians claimed Jewish states to be theirs, therefore opposing Jewish states. 4. Wars were fought between Jews and Arabs, and Jews and Palestinians. II. Israel Becomes a State A. Palestinians, Jews, and Arabs all claim the same lands (Israel, West Bank, and the Gaza Strip in modern day Palestine). 1. Jews’ reason: 3,000 before, Jewish Kings ruled the lands from Jerusalem. . Palestinians’ reason: land was theirs since Jewish exile on A. D. 135. 3. Arabs’ reason: their conquest of the lands in the 7th century (600s). B. The Jews wanted to return to Palestine and gain a Jewish state centuries after their exile. 1. The Jewish were unable to gain their own state after their exile, and dispersed around the world (Diaspor a). 2. Zionists (people who favored a Jewish state in Palestine) started returning to their homeland during the 19th and 20th centuries (1800s-1900s). C. A British idea of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine cause sparks between the Jews and Palestinians. 1. The British directed Palestine (League of Nations’ commands) as a result of the loss of the Turkish Ottoman Empire in WWI. 2. Many Jews were in Palestine, and pressed for their own nation. 3. Palestinians opposed the idea, so when Secretary Sir Arthur Balfour of Britain proposed creating a Jewish state while keeping the rights of non-Jewish communities (Balfour Declaration) and the plan failed, tensions rose between Palestinians and Jews. D. The U. S. and many European nations felt sympathy towards the Jews, who were targeted in the Holocaust, so they devised a plan that would give Jews what they desired. 1. The UN General Assembly voted for partition in Palestine, one part being a Palestinian state, the other being a Jewish state, and Jerusalem being an international city owned by no one. 2. The Jews made up 34% of the population but gained 55% of the land. E. The partition was set, although Muslims and Palestines rejected it. 1. â€Å"The UN has no right to make such a proposal without first consulting the majority who will be affected by it. †- Muslims and Palestinians. 2. David Ben Gurion (leader of Jews in Palestine) announced that the independent nation of Israel was formed on May 14, 1948. III. Israel and Arab States in Conflict A. War broke out between Israeli and Arab states. 1. The first one (won by Israel) was a day before Israel became a nation, where Islamic states (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi, Arabia, and Syria invaded Israel. B. The partition wasn’t fully effective because of fighting. 1. Israel seized half of Palestine in 1948-1949. 2. 600,000 Palestinians left to nearby UN sponsored refugee camps. 3. Arabs also seized Palestinian lands. C. War broke out in 1956 during the Suez Crisis. 1. Egypt seized the Suez Canal. 2. Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egyptian president) sent troops to seized the canal controlled by British because he was angry that the U. S. and British stopped financially supporting Egypt’s Aswan Dam. 3. Britain formed an alliance with France and israel to regain the Suez canal. 4. Israel defeated the Egyptians using air support of their European allies. 5. The war ended when the U. S. and Soviets forced Israel and Europeans out of Egypt, ultimately giving Egypt the Suez Canal by the end of the Suez Crisis. D. Another war broke out in 1967, called the Six-Day War. 1. Nasser and Arab allies, equipped with Soviet tanks and aircraft were ready to confront Israel and close off Israel’s outlet to the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aqaba. 2. Israelis knew Arabs would attack, so the struck airfields in Egypt, Iran, Jordan, and Syria, and ground forces defeated Arab states in this Six-Day War. 4. Israelis gained the lands around them (Jerusalem, Sinai Peninsula, The Golden Heights, and the West Bank). 5. They served as buffers for future attacks. 6. Palestinians living in Jerusalem chose Jordanian citizenship, and others not living in Jerusalem went other Jewish control. E. A fourth War broke out in October 1973, called the Yom Kippur War. 1. Anwar Sadat,(Egyptian president who succeeded Nasser) planned an Arab attack on Israel during Yom Kippur. . Sadat was able to reconquer land lost in the Six-Day War. 3. Golda Meir (prime minister of Israel during the Yom Kippur War) counterattacked and regained most the land. 4. After weeks of fighting, a truce was declared. F. Palestinians pushed for recognition and its own state. 1. The UN had given Palestinians its own state during the partition, but the land given was seized by Is raelis during their vast amount of wars. 2. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was organized by Palestinian officials in 1964, and initially consisted mostly of social workers, like teachers, lawyers.

The Doctrine of ‘Personality Rights’ in the UK

The Doctrine of ‘Personality Rights’ in the UK The United Kingdom has never acknowledged a specific doctrine of ‘personality rights’; the law provides neither coherent nor consistent protection, as the courts are ‘sceptical about creating monopoly rights in nebulous concepts such as names, likeness or popularity’.[1] Therefore celebrities and other high-profile individuals rely on a combination of passing off, trademark, copyright and privacy laws for protection of the commercial value of their personality. None of these were invented to protect personality rights; however they are gradually developing to adjust to the commercial reality of the value of celebrity merchandising and endorsements. Misleading the public by giving a false impression of endorsement of a product by a celebrity has been to commit the tort of passing off for over a decade.[2] The tort of passing off was traditionally defined as ‘nobody has the right to represent his goods as the goods of someone else’.[3] The ‘ classical trinity’ is necessary to succeed in passing off: ‘the goodwill or reputation must be attached to the products or services of the plaintiff, the misrepresentation must lead to the confusion as to the source of the goods and services, and this confusion must cause damage to the claimant’.[4] In the case of Fenty Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) Anor,[5] high street fashion retailer Topshop licensed an image of popstar Rihanna’s face from a photographer and printed it on a t-shirt without either her permission being sought nor obtained. Rihanna then sued for passing off. Mr Justice Birss applied the doctrine to the dispute. Although on very particular facts, Birss J found in favour of Rihanna and established a general principle that arguably goes against any celebrities who might have hoped to see the creation of a doctrine of personality rights. This decision develops the tort of passing off to small degree whilst emphasising that, in each case, the facts are decisive.[6] The debate about the recognition of personality rights in the UK is gathering impetus in the wake of Fenty with academics like Walsh questioning if ‘personality rights are finally on the agenda’.[7] In the 1970s the UK courts were regularly unwilling to find false impressions relating to merchandising resulted in misrepresentation because of the need to show that they were engaged in a ‘common field of activity’. This introduced a somewhat blunt test for confusion and there often would be no proximity between, for example, a radio broadcaster and a cereal manufacturer.[8] Until the test was discarded, at least as an absolute condition,[9] it limited attempts to expand the categories of misrepresentation to cover licensing connections.[10] Where the absence of a common field of activity was not conclusive the court for example held the use of the name of the pop group Abba on merchandise did not amount to passing off on the basis that there was no real possibility that the public would be confused into thinking that Abba had approved the goods merely because their name or photograph appeared on them.[11] Likewise the use of a photograph of the Spice Girls on the cove r of a sticker collection was held not to constitute passing off.[12] An important exception came when it was held passing off had been established where cartoon characters, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, were on clothing without authorisation, since the public did expect the goods to be licensed.[13] This case was distinguished from the Abba scenario on the basis that it was brought in the context of the unauthorised reproduction of images of cartoons in which copyright existed, rather than the image or name of a celebrity. Yet the decision is generally viewed as opening up character merchandising law in the UK. In the seminal case of Irvine Laddie J held passing off covered cases of false endorsement, like where Talksport had altered an image of racing driver Eddie Irvine to have him hold a branded Talksport radio for advertising purposes without his permission. Laddie J considered the increasingly popular marketing practice of personality licensing, including the licensing of a personality’s name or likeness outside a celebrity’s area of expertise as a common and lucrative practice for them, to reject the ‘common à ¯Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ eld of activity’ condition. Laddie J identified the inherent flexibility of passing off by saying ‘the sort of cases which come within the scope of a passing off action has not remained stationary over the years†¦passing off is closely connected to and dependent upon what is happening in the market place’.[14] Although Irvine was celebrated as a turning point in the protection of personality rights, the important limitation in the judgment was that passing off was limited to false endorsement and excluded merchandising cases. The classic celebrity-merchandising situation seems similar: the celebrity has a reputation and the public knows that it is common practice for celebrities to market their popularity by granting merchandise licenses.[15] Laddie J differentiated between cases of endorsement and merchandising, however in Fenty Birss J approved Laddie J’s reasoning but made it clear there is no difference in merchandising cases and that the legal principles apply equally well in passing off if the public had been deceived into thinking the celebrity had authorised the product. Rihanna easily established sufficient goodwill in the fashion industry, as a style icon because of her ‘cool, edgy image’.[16] This was demonstrated in her endorsement contracts with Nike and Gillette, her fashion design and promotion work with rival retailer River Island, and she had worked with HM, Gucci and Armani to collaborate on and design clothing. Birss J therefore stated Rihanna’s ‘identity and endorsement in the world of high street fashion was perceived†¦to have tangible value by an organisation well placed to know’.[17] Misrepresentation was the key issue. Topshop argued the clothing was simply a t-shirt bearing an image of Rihanna and the public had no expectation that it was authorised by her, whereas Rihanna contended that the particular facts of the case meant customers were misled into believing she had endorsed the t-shirt herself. The court considered the point in depth, addressing the various circumstances before considering the issue as a whole. Certain evidence considered was found to be neutral to finding a misrepresentation. The fact there was other unauthorised clothing bearing Rihanna’s image on sale did not imply that the public would necessarily believe that such clothing was authorised. Topshop had sold both clothing bearing authorised images and clothing, which was approved or endorsed by celebrities. Overall, its customers were neutral: having no positive expectation either way when considering clothing bearing a celebrity’s image. Also the t-shirt was fashionable an d on sale in a high street retailer. Certain factors indicated finding in Topshop’s favour. Some of Rihanna’s official merchandise included an ‘R slash’ trademark logo or her name, the t-shirt lacked both, and apart from a few days online the word ‘Rihanna’ was not used at all. There was also no genuine evidence of actual confusion. However on balance, significant factors supported RIhanna. Topshop had made considerable effort to emphasise connections in the public consciousness between the store and celebrities notably Kate Moss, and now more importantly Rihanna. This made it more likely purchasers would conclude that the t-shirt was authorised and being a fashion retailer, consumers would reasonably expect Topshop to publicise and sell products authorised by celebrities. Topshop’s prior association with Rihanna was important as Topshop ran a competition in 2010 to win a personal shopping appointment with Rihanna. Rihanna also visited Topshop in 2012 which they chose to publicise by tweeting to their 350,000 Twitter followers, just before the t-shirt went on sale – a significant commercial communication in the eyes of Birss J, to a demographic who valued social media highly. Topshop had therefore repeatedly associated itself and it products with Rihanna in a high-profile manner and this demonstrated Topshop were looking to take advantage of Rihanna’s position as a style icon. The image on the t-shirt was taken during the video shoot of RIhanna’s single ‘We Found Love’ from her 2011 ‘Talk that Talk’ album. Importantly, it showed Rihanna with the same hairstyle and headscarf as the album cover. This meant that the image was not just recognisably Rihanna but looked like a promotional shot for the music release. The court found that it was entirely likely that, to her fans, the image might be regarded as part of the marketing campaign. This was a critical point in the de cision. Although Birss J believed a ‘good number’ of purchasers would buy the t-shirt without considering the question of authorisation, he concluded that, in the circumstances, a substantial proportion of those judging the t-shirt (specifically Rihanna fans) would be encouraged to think that it was clothing authorised by the popstar. They would have recognised that particular image of Rihanna not simply as an image of her but as a particular image of her connected with the particular context of the album. Many of these purchasers would have bought the product because they thought that Rihanna had authorised it; others would have bought it because of the value of the perceived authorisation itself. In each case, the idea that it was authorised was part of what motivated them to buy the product and in each case they would have been deceived. The test for damage was also easily satisfied. If a substantial number of purchaser’s were deceived into buying the t-shirt because of a false belief that it was authorised by Rihanna herself, then that would have damaged Rihanna’s goodwill, both by way of sales lost to her merchandising business and a loss of control over her reputation in the fashion sphere.[18] Considering the particular facts, it is not surprising Birss J found in Rihanna’s favour. The classical trinity of passing off were fulfilled, however this decision is unlikely to open the floodgates for cases to be brought every time a celebrity’s image is used without a merchandising license, as it was made clear ‘the mere sale by a trader of a t-shirt bearing an image of a famous person is not without more, an act of passing off’.[19] Birss J was eager to emphasise that ‘there is today in England no such thing as a free standing general right by a famous person (or anyone else) to control reproduction of their image.’[20] The judgment is useful as a confirmation of the general principles of passing off applied to unauthorised use of celebrity images.[21] If the UK is approaching the creation of a doctrine of personality rights in some form, it is necessary to analyse the justifications and gauge whether they are robust enough to validate the subsequent restraints that would be placed upon society. The justifications suggested in support of personality rights fall largely into three groups: moral, economic and consumer protection arguments. The labour-based moral justification is founded on John Locke’s theory of property.[22] Essentially, itprovidesthat an individualhasamoralrightintheobjectofvaluetransformedbecauseoftheir efforts. Nimmer supported this point by contending that the person who has ‘long and laboriously nurtured the fruit of publicity values’ and has spent ‘time, effort, skill, and even money’ in their creation, is presumably allowed to enjoy it.[23] Professor McCarthy feels personality rights are ‘a â€Å"common-sense†, self-evident right needing little intellectual rationalisation to justify its existence’.[24] However, Madow deconstructs these arguments by contending that fame is something ‘conferred by others’ and is not necessarily down to the efforts of the individual.[25] Moreover according to Madow the labour argument ignoresthe fundamentalrole themediaplayinthecreationofcelebrities.He uses the example of Einstein andobservesthatth emedia selectedhim becausehedidinterviews, wasquotable and hehadtheright‘look’.[26]TheimageofEinsteinthat is familiar today,what itmeanstothe pubic themadbutpleasant scientistwith bushywhitehairandmoustache wasa personality createdby themedia. Therefore only when the media and public take notice and attach importance to a personal image can it fully enter into the market place.[27] Thus contrary to the statement by McCarthy, it would appear a celebrity cannot justify that they solely created their public image and consequently cannot stake an indisputable moral claim to the exclusive ownership or control of the economic value that comes with it. Personality rights can also be justified on economic arguments. Economic theory proposes persons should be economically incentivised into ‘undertaking socially, enriching activities’ such as creating a persona that benefits society culturally,[28] and this creativity can only be encouraged if the person is given exclusive right to control their creations, because this ‘provides incentive for performers to make economic investments required to produce performances appealing to the public’.[29] However Carty doubts whether personality rights would produce increases in ‘economic activity’ or ‘innovation’.[30] Following Madow’s ideas, the UK is currently without a personality right, yet celebrities still gain significant income from their publicity values and failure to introduce such a right in the future will not stop individuals profiting from the income already gained through endorsements and merchandising officially authoris ed by them.[31] According to Madow such protection also has ‘distributional consequences’,[32] whereby personality rights elevate the price of merchandise and advertising in general, placing more wealth in the hands of a select few, who already derive significant income, and away from the mass of consumers making up society.[33] Another justification for personality rights is the consumer protection argument focusing on the idea that without protection, the public will be misled about the authorisation of a celebrity’s association with a product or service. At first sight the consumer protection argument appears advisable, joining protection of the celebrity’s success with protection of the consumer, and it mirrors the traditional rationale for trademark and passing off.[34] However personality rights would allow celebrities to stop commercial uses of their personas that are not fraudulent or deceptive, and Professor Shiffrin states personality rights give celebrites power ‘to control the dissemination of truth for his or her own profit’.[35] On another level, Madow argues the degree to which personality rights would stop the consumer being misled is generally superfluous,[36] because in situations where there is a realistic chance that, consumers will be deceived or confused about a celebrity’s association or endorsement, legal mechanisms better adapted for that reason already exist, notably passing off. In conclusion, the extent to which Fenty constitutes a creation of a doctrine of ‘personality rights’ is limited. In the words of Roberts ‘this judgment does not change the law; and it does not create an â€Å"image right†. It simply applies the existing doctrine of passing off to the evolving commercial reality of the value of celebrity endorsements’.[37] The decision is important as it improves a flaw in the Irvine verdict,[38] in the same way that Irvine marked the first time that passing off was applied to false endorsement, Fenty is the first time it has been applied to false merchandising featuring a real person, with merchandising claims having only previously succeeded in relation to fictional characters,[39] and indicates that UK courts are slowly recognising the need to protect the commercial value of celebrity merchandising. It is clear from the case that the result was carefully balanced on particular facts and that if for example Rihanna had not been a fashion icon or the image was different she would have less chance of being successful. Fenty highlights the issue of misrepresentation is however always one of fact, and the false belief of the purchaser is key: to constitute passing off, a false belief incited in the mind of the prospective purchaser must play a role in their choice to buy. Although there are persuasive advocates of the creation of a doctrine of personality rights,[40] and there is also no definite rationale for an absolute rejection,[41] it would seem the decision in Fenty should be welcomed because there are substantial drawbacks in the moral, economic and consumer protection justifications put forward. The decision develops passing off to a small degree to keep up with modern business practice without creating personality rights, which are not necessary as celebrities are already sufficiently protected. The tort of passing off has again demonstrated its inherent flexibility and that it is ‘ closely connected to and dependent upon what is happening in the market place’. To sum up, ‘without an element of consumer deception, English law in this area remains characteristically cautious’,[42] and this should be welcomed. [1] J. Klink, ’50 years of Publicity Rights in the United States and the Never Ending Hassle with Intellectual Property and Personality Rights in Europe’, (2003), 4 IPQ 363, p.366. [2] Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 423 [3] Reddaway v Banham (1896) 13 RPC 218 at 244 per Lord Halsbury [4] Reckitt Colman v Borden [1990] 1 WLR 491 at 499 per Lord Oliver [5] [2010] EWHC 2310 (Ch) [6] D. Meale, ‘Rihanna’s face on a T-shirt without a licence? No, this time it’s passing off’, (2013) 8(11) JIPLP 823, p.823. [7] C. Walsh, ‘Are personality rights finally on the UK agenda?’, (2013) 35(5) EIPR 253, p.253. [8] McCulloch v Lewis A May [1947] 2 All ER 845 [9] Lyngstad v Anabas Products [1977] FSR 62 at 67; [10] Wombles Ltd v Wombles Skips Ltd [1975] FSR 488 Ch D; [11] Lyngstad v Anabas Products [1977] FSR 62 [12] Halliwell Ors v Panini Ors (6 June, 1997, unreported) [13] Mirage Studiosv Counterfeat Clothing [1991] FSR 145 [14] [2002] FSR 60 at para 13-14 [15] J. Klink, op.cit., p.375. [16] Fenty v Topshop [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch) at [46] [17] Ibid at [42] [18] Ibid at [72] [19] Ibid at [75] [20] Ibid at [2] [21] H. Beverley-Smith and L. Barrow, ‘Talk that tort†¦of passing off: RIhanna, and the scope of actionable misrepresentation: Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop), (2014), 36(1) EIPR 57, p.61. [22] J. Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1952) [23] M.B. Nimmer, ‘The Right of Publicity’, (1954) 19 Law and Contemporary Problems 203, p.216. [24] J.T. McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy, (New York: C.Boardman, 1987), s.1.1[B] [2] at 1-5; s.1.11[C] at 1-46. [25] M. Madow, ‘Private Ownership of Public Image: Popular Culture and Publicity Rights’, (1993), 81 CLR 125, p.182. [26] Ibid, p.190 [27] J. Fowles, Celebrity Performers and the American Public, (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1992), p.84. [28] J.T. McCarthy, ’Melville B. Nimmer and the Right of Publicity: A Tribute’ (1987) 34 UCLA LR1703, p.1710. [29] D.E. Shipley, ‘Publicity Never Dies: It just Fades Away, (1981) 66 Cornell LR 673, p.681. [30] H. Carty, ‘Advertising, Publicity Rights and English Law’, (2004) 3 IPQ 209, p.251. [31] M. Madow, op.cit., p.211 [32] Ibid, p.218. [33] Ibid [34] H. Carty, op.cit., p.252. [35] S. Shiffrin, ‘The First Amendment and Economic Regulations: Away from a General Theory of the First Amendment’, (1983) 78 NW ULR 1212, p.1258. [36] M. Madow, op.cit., p.233. [37] J. Roberts, ‘Face off: Rihanna wins â€Å"image rights† case’, (2013), 24(8) Ent LR 283, p.285. [38] A. De Landa Barajas, ‘Personality rights in the United States and the United Kingdom – is Vanna too much? Is Irvine not enough?’, (2009) 20(7) Ent LR 253, p.258. [39] J. Roberts, op.cit., p.285. [40] S. Bains, ‘Personality rights: should the UK grant celebrities a proprietary right in their personality? Part 2’, (2013) 18(6) Ent LR 205 [41] [42] H. Beverley-Smith, op.cit., p.61.

Sending Technology Back in Time :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Sending Technology Back in Time The hot sun was shining high in the sky, as wind picked up dirt and threw it through the air. A tall, dark haired man stepped carefully behind a wooden plow. The animal that pulled the wooden, manmade creation was a shaggy, dark-gray donkey. The field is approximately two acres, and will probably take from sunrise to sunset to plow. In the distance, a brown horse and buggy slowly move along a flat dirt road. The long and tedious trip to the nearest town will take all day. John, the man guiding the plow, will have to take the same journey in a few days. For the most part, John is able to stay on the farm and perform daily tasks. The farm is self-sufficient. The lives of John and his family are devoted to taking care of the farm; without it, they would have nothing. Days are long on the farm and the five children that are old enough work a full day. The oldest children help in the fields with the plowing or planting. The younger children help with the simpler tasks and the two youngest run and play. The work is laborious and time consuming, and John's body aches after each day of work. The setting sun in the west tells John that it will soon be time to stop. When the only light that revealed any of the outside world was from the small glow of a gas lantern, John finally called it quits. Glad that the day was over, he headed back in the house. Dinner was already on the table, and all the kids were seated around it, hands and faces washed. John's wife, Anne, spent nearly the whole day preparing the meal of foods that were all acquired from their farm. When all the food was cleared from the plates, John headed to bed. He dreamed of little, knowing that all he had to wake up to the next morning was more work. As the sun began to creep through the blinds of the windows, a loud, obnoxious beep rang through his room. John woke with a jump to find that the noise was coming from a small box with a clock face on the front. The beeping continued until, John was finally able to find the off switch. The sound was still ringing in his ears, as he took a glance around his room.

South Africa Is Our Only Real Mother

The hand that rocks the cradle, Is the hand that rules the world. These are the wise words of William Wallace. I agree with him: A mother knows how to educate her children. For us South Africa is our only real mother. Plinks said: People undertake great Journeys to faraway places to see things that they don't appreciate in their own country. Our Mother South Africa cares about us, and therefore she takes us to her Art Museum filled with all her beautiful treasures of nature. Table Mountain with its cloudy table-cloth, is the beacon where a new nation was born.Then she takes us on the Garden Route through Cornerstones with its bonbons and protease. According to the description of the poet Liana Spies, Unequalled is the place where God's seed sachet was leaking†¦ When Spring starts, the earth is covered with thousands of colored flowers that take your breath away! From there she takes you on a game drive to the big five. Nowhere else in the world will you find this unique variety of wild life: Lions, Elephants, Rhino, Buffalo's and Leopards. It is the dream of every hunter to have a trophy of one of these animals as part of his hunting collection- Says PeterWeakened in the magazine â€Å"Go† of Cot 08. A mother definitely spoils her child. South Africa has many resources. If you open the tap, the water is running. If you drive into the countryside, you see the crop fields, vineyards, fruit orchards, vegetable farms and plantations that provide food and oxygen to Mother Africans children. If you walk out the door and see children play, you realize that that is a privilege – Says Urdu van Wok in ROI Rose of July 08. Oversees cluster houses with no garden at all, are the normal way of living. So, appreciate the open blue, African Sky!Ecologist Sydney Wright said: The earth is our playground. Mother South Africa nurtures us. We are all caught up in the rat race against time. We run around like mad dogs, being uptight and stiff-lipped. Then Mother S outh Africa puts her arms around us and takes us on a trip to the beach where we can revivalist our souls. It doesn't matter what we enjoy most: The fresh sea breeze, the deep blue ocean, the hot white sand, or the hot brown bodies†¦.! South Africans are known as the sun-seekers of the world. And when the sun sets, we turn to the company of a barbecue with friends and loved ones. Amp steak and the call of the hyena†¦ No wonder the English Pompoms me. Y us and try to copy-cat our â€Å"brainless. † I call their poor excuse for meat on a TV-briar, a â€Å"Barbie†! Ladies and gentlemen†¦ According to National Geographic, South Africa has 5 of the world's top rated nature reserves. We are lucky that Mother South Africa cuddles us with her beautiful scenery. She spoils us by keeping our food stores full, And provides us with exotic places to relax and revivalist. Mother South Africa is a country that provides us with what the Afrikaans poet – C Louis L eopold – describes as: â€Å"Summer, sun and sapphire for me!!

Cultural Conservatism essays

Cultural Conservatism essays Culture in ancient times was defined as the sum total of the equipment of the human individual, which enables him to be attuned to his immediate environment on the historical past on the other. It reflects in effect what humans have added to nature. It comprises the spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of a society and includes, in addition to the arts and letters, the value systems, traditions, modes of life and beliefs of the society. Through these aspects it is evident that the basis of growth and establishment of human culture is addition and change. However, in modern America this growth of culture is often resisted until it can no longer be held at bay. Many conservatives see these social changes as threatening because they feel that it will ultimately degrade the religious or social ethics which they personally hold. However, to put it simply, and it's not a problem that only conservatives have, conservatives very often confuse ethics and aesthetics. When people such as Gertude Himmelfarb, a conservative Christian historian, attack our, as she perceives it, "amoral," "sexually deviant," and "perverse" culture they are primarily responding to something that they find culturally foreign and aesthetically threatening. I agree that values are oftentimes a good thing, but only when they are born of an ethical and realistic perspective, not an aesthetic one. We are all trying to make out an existence in unbelievably confusing circumstances. Given our biological inheritance, we need to be more tolerant of ourselves and more tolerant and compassionate in our dealings with others. The standards that we have for human behavior are at times noble, but at times quite absurd. We are genetically designed to be lustful, aggressive, gregarious, productive creatures, and it can be a good thing to hold ourselves to high community standards of behavior, but we need to deal with ourselves as who and what we ...

Thomas Malthus Biography

Thomas Malthus Biography Early Life and Education: Born February 13 or 14, 1766 - Died December 29, 1834 (see note at the end of the article), Thomas Robert Malthus was born on either February 13 or 14, 1766 (different sources list both as a possible date of birth) in Surrey County, England to Daniel and Henrietta Malthus. Thomas was the sixth of seven children and began his education by being home schooled. As a young scholar, Malthus excelled in his studies of literature and mathematics. He pursued a degree at Jesus College in Cambridge and received a Masters of Art degree in 1791 despite a speech impediment caused by a hare-lip and cleft palate. Personal Life: Thomas Malthus married his cousin Harriet in 1804 and they had two daughters and a son. He took a job as a professor at the East India Company College in England. Biography: In 1798, Malthus published his best known work, Essay on the Principle of Population. He was intrigued by the idea that all human populations throughout history had a section that were living in poverty. He hypothesized that populations would grow in areas with plenty of resources until those resources were strained to the point that some of the population would have to go without. Malthus went on to say that factors like famine, war, and disease in historical populations took care of the overpopulation crisis that would have taken over if left unchecked. Thomas Malthus not only pointed out these problems, he also came up with some solutions. Populations needed to stay within appropriate limits by either raising the death rate or lowering the birth rate. His original work emphasized what he called positive checks that raised the death rate, such as war and famine. Revised editions focused more on what he considered preventative checks, like birth control or celibacy and, more controversially, abortion and prostitution. His ideas were considered radical and many religious leaders stepped forward to denounce his works, even though Malthus himself was a clergyman in the Church of England. These detractors made attacks against Malthus for his ideas and spread lies about his personal life. This did not deter Malthus, however, as he made a total of six revisions to his Essay on the Principle of Population, further explaining his points and adding new evidence with each revision. Thomas Malthus blamed the declining living conditions on three factors. The first was the uncontrolled reproduction of offspring. He felt families were producing more children than they could care for with their allotted resources. Second, the production of those resources could not keep up with the expanding population. Malthus wrote extensively on his views that agriculture could not be expanded enough to feed the entire population of the world. The final factor was the irresponsibility of the lower classes. In fact, Malthus mostly blamed the poor for continuing to reproduce even though they could not afford to care for the children. His solution was to limit the lower classes to the number of offspring they were allowed to produce. Both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace read Essay on the Principle of Population and saw much of their own research in nature being mirrored in the human population. Malthus ideas of overpopulation and the death it caused was one of the main pieces that helped shaped the idea of Natural Selection. The survival of the fittest idea not only applied to populations in the natural world, it also seemed to apply to more civilized populations like humans. The lower classes were dying due to lack of resources available to them, much like the Theory of Evolution by Way of Natural Selection proposed. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both praised Thomas Malthus and his work. They give Malthus a large portion of the credit for shaping their ideas and helping to hone the Theory of Evolution, and in particular, their ideas of Natural Selection. Note: Most sources agree Malthus died on December 29, 1834, but some claim his actual date of death was December 23, 1834. It is unclear which date of death is correct, just as his exact date of birth is also unclear.