214
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.74.02.18
How to Cite:
Tumalavičius, V., Prykhodkina, N., Vovk, M., Mytych, S., & Kustovska, O. (2024). Legal impacts of digitization on intellectual
property. Amazonia Investiga, 13(74), 214-226. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.74.02.18
Legal impacts of digitization on intellectual property
Aspectos jurídicos de la protección de la propiedad intelectual en la era digital
Received: January 4, 2024 Accepted: February 23, 2024
Written by:
Vladas Tumalavičius1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0811-0074
Nataliia Prykhodkina2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9965-6912
Mariia Vovk3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8740-8222
Serhiy Mytych4
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4426-9543
Oksana Kustovska5
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1469-9249
Abstract
The digital age has revolutionized the way
intellectual property is created, shared, and
protected. This article explores the legal aspects of
IP protection in the digital age, focusing on the
challenges and opportunities posed by digital
technologies. The objective of this study is to
analyze the evolving landscape of IP protection in
the digital age, examining the impact of
digitalization on traditional IP laws and regulations.
This study employs a qualitative research
methodology, conducting a comprehensive review
of existing literature, laws, and regulations related
to IP protection in the digital age. Content analysis
and synthesis are used to illustrate key concepts and
trends. The results of the study highlight the need
for updated and harmonized IP laws to address the
challenges posed by digital technologies. The study
also identifies the importance of technological
solutions, such as blockchain and digital rights
management, in enhancing IP protection in the
digital age. In conclusion, the study emphasizes the
importance of adapting IP laws and regulations to
1
PhD in Law, Researcher, Research Group for Security Institutions Management, General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania,
Vilnius, Lithuania. WoS Researcher ID: AAE-1718-2022
2
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, and Chief Scientific Officer, Department of Research Activities of Universities, Institute
of Higher Education, National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID:
AAM-8016-2020
3
PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law Disciplines, Institute of Law of the Lviv State
University of Internal Affairs, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: ADJ-3397-2022
4
PhD, Teacher, The Criminal Procedural Law Department, National Academy of Internal Affairs, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher
ID: KAM-7230-2024
5
PhD in Economics, Associate Professor, Department of Land-Use Planning, Faculty of Land Management, National University of
Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: HGD-2853-2022
Tumalavičius, V., Prykhodkina, N., Vovk, M., Mytych, S., Kustovska, O. / Volume 13 - Issue 74: 214-226 / February, 2024
Volume 13 - Issue 74
/ February 2024
215
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
the digital age to ensure effective protection of IP
rights. It also underscores the need for collaboration
between governments, industries, and technology
companies to develop innovative solutions for IP
protection in the digital era.
Keywords: evolution, intellectual property rights,
digital age, legal frameworks, technological
advancements, artificial intelligence.
Introduction
In the rapidly evolving digital age, the protection
of intellectual property has become a paramount
concern. As technological advancements
continue to reshape the way information is
created, disseminated, and consumed, the legal
aspects surrounding intellectual property rights
have assumed unprecedented significance. This
necessitates a comprehensive examination of the
challenges and opportunities that arise in
safeguarding intellectual property in the digital
realm.
The digital age has ushered in an era of
unparalleled connectivity and information
accessibility (Sofilkanych et al., 2023). However,
this interconnectedness has also given rise to a
myriad of challenges for protecting intellectual
property. With the ease of digital reproduction
and distribution, issues such as copyright
infringement, piracy, and unauthorized use have
proliferated. The relevance of understanding and
addressing the legal aspects of intellectual
property protection in the digital age is thus
imperative to foster innovation, encourage
creativity, and ensure a fair and sustainable
knowledge economy.
Many studies have delved into the legal
dynamics of intellectual property protection in
the digital era. These studies highlight the
complexities posed by emerging technologies,
the inadequacy of traditional legal frameworks,
and the need for adaptive strategies (Pelegrinová
& Lačný, 2016). Besides, modern research
collectively provide insights into various facets
of intellectual property protection, technological
innovation, global economic perspectives and
sone legal procedures (Nadobko, 2020;
Voronkova et al., 2019). However, without
applying these works, there is still a lack of
comprehensive works that would systematize the
experience of various countries in the protection
of intellectual property.
The research problem at the core of this study
revolves around the inadequacies of current legal
frameworks in addressing the multifaceted
challenges posed by the digital age to intellectual
property protection. The dynamic nature of
technological advancements often outpaces
legislative responses, leaving intellectual
property vulnerable to various forms of
infringement. This research aims to scrutinize
these gaps and propose nuanced solutions that
align with the evolving nature of the digital
landscape.
The primary aim of this research is to critically
examine the legal aspects of intellectual property
protection in the digital age and propose effective
strategies for mitigating the challenges posed by
technological advancements. By assessing the
current legal frameworks, understanding the
implications of emerging technologies, and
drawing on insights from relevant studies, this
research aims to contribute to the enhancement
of intellectual property protection mechanisms in
the digital era.
To achieve the stated aim, the following research
tasks will be undertaken:
1. to review of existing legal framework
2. to analyze the influence of emerging
technologies, such as artificial intelligence,
blockchain, and digital distribution
platforms, on intellectual property
protection.
3. to explore and analyze specific cases of
intellectual property infringement in the
digital space to identify patterns, challenges,
and potential solutions.
By undertaking these research tasks, this study
aspires to contribute valuable insights to the
ongoing discourse on intellectual property
protection, facilitating the development of legal
frameworks that are not only robust but also
216
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
capable of adapting to the dynamic digital
system.
Literature review
Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the
mind, encompassing a broad range of intangible
assets such as inventions, literary and artistic
works, designs, symbols, names, and trade
secrets. These creations are the result of human
intellect and creativity, and they hold value for
individuals, businesses, and society at large.
Intellectual property serves as a means to
incentivize innovation, foster creativity, and
promote economic growth by granting creators
and innovators exclusive rights to their intangible
assets.
The protection of intellectual property is a
concept that involves legal and regulatory
frameworks designed to safeguard the rights of
creators and inventors. The fundamental purpose
is to provide a set of exclusive rights that allow
the originators of intellectual property to control
how their creations are used, shared, and
commercialized (Mansfield, 2000). These
exclusive rights typically come with certain
limitations and durations, aiming to strike a
balance between the interests of the creators and
the broader public (Brown et al., 2016).
Therefore, modern authors have focused on
various aspects of intellectual property
protection. For instance, Cho and Kim (2017)
examined the issue of relationship between
intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and
technological innovation. Focusing on the
business context, the research investigated how
robust IPR regimes influenced the incentives for
firms to engage in research and development
activities. The authors discussed the role of IPR
protection as a motivator for technological
innovation and its impact on the overall
competitiveness of businesses. Cimoli, Dosi,
Maskus, Okediji, Reichman and Stiglitz (2014)
provided a comprehensive overview of the role
of intellectual property rights in modern
countries. Examining the broader economic
implications, the research synthesized findings
on how IPR regimes affected innovation,
technology transfer, and economic development
in developing nations. The authors presented
conclusions and insights drawn from various
studies, offering a nuanced understanding of the
challenges and opportunities associated with
intellectual property rights in the context of
global development. Besides, Janković (2017)
explored diverse legal aspects related to
intellectual property laws. Focused on procedural
aspects within the European Union legal
framework, the research provided an in-depth
analysis of the legal intricacies surrounding IPR.
The author addressed issues such as enforcement,
dispute resolution, and the evolving nature of
intellectual property law within the EU. Mula
and Lobina (2012) provided insights into legal
challenges and protections specific to web pages.
Given the rapidly changing nature of the online
environment, the study's analysis could be
enriched by considering evolving digital
technologies, user-generated content, and global
legal perspectives on web page protection.
Kumar (2012) investigated the intersection of
digital rights management (DRM) and
intellectual property protection. Focused on the
digital realm, the research explored how DRM
technologies contributed to the protection of
intellectual property in the context of digital
content. Mula and Lobina (2012) provided
insights into legal challenges and protections
specific to web pages. Given the rapidly
changing nature of the online environment, the
study's analysis could be enriched by considering
evolving digital technologies, user-generated
content, and global legal perspectives on web
page protection. Yi and Naghavi's (2017)
research delved into the intersection of
intellectual property rights (IPR), foreign direct
investment (FDI), and technological
development. This study contributes to the
ongoing debate on how IPR influences
innovation and economic growth. Moreover,
Calista, Sudirman and Djaja (2023) analyzed the
legal protection of digital painting. This work
uses normative legal analysis using legal data.
According to these results, copyright is an
exclusive right formed from non-property and
economic rights. This study demonstrates that
copyright issues exist today, especially in the
digital age. Legal regulation of intellectual
property protection in EU countries was defined
by Yavorska & Boyarska (2020). The results of
this study demonstrate both challenges and
solutions for this system. Litvishchenko's (2020)
study explored the legal dimensions of protecting
television formats as intellectual property. This
niche focus indicated a recognition of the
evolving nature of content creation and the need
for legal frameworks to keep pace. The study's
brevity suggested it may serve as a foundational
exploration or commentary. However, a deeper
analysis of specific legal mechanisms, case
studies, or comparative perspectives could
enhance the study's depth and
applicability.However, the study described
effective mechanisms for the protection of
intellectual property in EU countries.In
conclusion, the reviewed studies collectively
Volume 13 - Issue 74
/ February 2024
217
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
provide insights into various facets of intellectual
property protection, spanning digital art,
technological innovation, global economic
perspectives, legal procedures, and digital rights
management. Each study contributes important
perspectives to the broader discourse on
intellectual property in its diverse applications
and contexts. However, in view of the
development of new and new threats to
intellectual property in the digital age, this
problem remains relevant and not fully
investigated. In this context, it is worth
comparing the experience of different countries
on the protection of IP.
Methodology
This research seeks to address this need by
analyzing the legal aspects of IP protection in the
digital age. By assessing the effectiveness of
current legal frameworks, understanding the
implications of emerging technologies, and
drawing on insights from relevant studies, this
research aims to propose effective strategies for
mitigating the challenges posed by technological
advancements. Ultimately, this research aims to
contribute to the enhancement of intellectual
property protection mechanisms in the digital
era, ensuring that creators, innovators, and
businesses can continue to thrive in an
increasingly digital world.
To provide the proposed research several
scientific methods were used. The synthesis
method was used to analyze and summarize
information on the legal aspects of intellectual
property protection in the digital age. This
method involves studying various sources of
information, such as scholarly articles, books,
legislation, case law, and other sources, to
identify key aspects of the topic. Furthermore, by
synthesizing the data obtained, the article can
conduct a comparative analysis of legal norms
and practices of intellectual property protection
in different countries. This will help identify
common trends and differences in regulating
intellectual property protection in the digital age.
Finally, through the synthesis of the data
obtained, the article can formulate conclusions
and recommendations for further development of
legislation and practice in intellectual property
protection in the digital age.
The main method was content analysis of
scientific data. For this study, it was utilized
multiple databases of scientific journals,
including Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of
Science, to gather bibliographic data. Keywords
such as "innovations", "digital technologies",
"law", "intellectual property", "legal challenges",
"opportunities of legal regulation" were used for
the search. The process of coding information
from the content analysis involved the selection
of sources based on relevance and relevance to
the topic. After that, the units of analysis were
determined, that is, a certain concept, sentence or
paragraph that was repeated in detail in other
works. Based on this, a detailed content analysis
was carried out. Each database offers unique
features and coverage, enhancing the
comprehensiveness of the research. For this
study, we relied on the Scopus database as our
primary source for collecting bibliographic data.
Scopus is a comprehensive abstract and citation
database that covers peer-reviewed scientific
content. It contains an extensive collection of
more than 80 million records, making it one of
the largest curated bibliographic databases
available today. This database includes
intelligent tools for monitoring, analyzing, and
visualizing research output across various
domains, such as science, technology, medicine,
social science, and arts and humanities. It was
used the function used Scopus’s “Analyze Search
Results” feature to analyze the data we collected.
This feature allowed us to conduct a detailed
analysis based on several criteria, including the
distribution of documents by year, document
sources, authors, institutes, subject areas, and
document types. By utilizing this functionality, it
became able to extract valuable insights from the
dataset.
Google Scholar is a freely accessible search
engine that indexes scholarly articles across
various disciplines. It provides a broad scope of
content, including peer-reviewed papers, theses,
books, conference papers, and patents. Google
Scholar's advanced search capabilities allowed
us to refine our search queries and retrieve
relevant articles on intellectual property rights.
Web of Science is a curated database that indexes
high-quality scholarly journals across different
subject areas. It offers robust citation analysis
tools, enabling us to track citations, identify
influential works, and discover related research.
Web of Science’s comprehensive coverage and
advanced search functionalities complemented
our data collection process.
It has been employed similar methodologies
across these databases, including using specific
search queries related to intellectual property
rights, analyzing search results to extract relevant
data, and utilizing database-specific features to
conduct in-depth analyses. By combining data
from multiple databases, we were able to
218
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
enhance the reliability and validity of our
findings.
This methodology, although effective, has
certain limitations. It is worth taking into account
the subjectivity of the judgments of scientists in
the selected works.
Results and discussion
Amidst the ongoing global shift towards the
digital era, there is a notable dearth of
comprehensive understanding regarding the
evolving landscape of intellectual property rights
(IPR) in this context. The Information Age has
enabled unparalleled access to information and
creative works, yet it has also engendered
intricate challenges pertaining to IPR protection
and enforcement. Recent statistics indicate that in
2020 alone, the internet hosted over 500 billion
copyrighted webpages, underscoring the
pressing need for a study that methodically
examines the shifts in IPR frameworks, the
burgeoning issues of digital copyright
infringement, and the ramifications of these
developments on diverse stakeholders.
The evolution of intellectual property rights
(IPR) in the United States and the UK has been
driven by technological advancements and
changing economic landscapes. In the USA,
copyright protection has expanded to include
digital media, reflecting the growing importance
of digital content. Patent applications related to
technology and software innovations have
increased significantly, highlighting the role of
patents in safeguarding technological
advancements (Adams, 2023). Trademark
registrations have also surged due to the
increasing globalization of markets and the rise
of e-commerce, emphasizing the importance of
brand protection. Similarly, in the UK, there has
been a notable increase in patent applications
related to AI and machine learning technologies,
leading to the streamlining of patent examination
processes (Bowie, 2005). These developments
underscore the need to adapt intellectual property
rights to accommodate emerging technologies
and changing business environments.
Trademark protection has also evolved in
response to digitalization. While the UK was a
member of the European Union, businesses could
secure trademark protection across EU member
states with a single application. However, post-
Brexit, the UK has introduced its own trademark
system while respecting existing EU trademarks,
ensuring continuity of trademark rights for UK-
based businesses. Additionally, the UK has
implemented domain name dispute resolution
mechanisms to address trademark-related issues
online. The evolution of intellectual property
rights in the UK is closely tied to the challenges
and opportunities of the digital age. The statistics
and legislative changes discussed here illustrate
the country’s commitment to adapting its legal
framework to safeguard intellectual property in
an increasingly digital and globalized
environment (Adams, 2023). As technologies
advance, intellectual property laws will likely
undergo further revisions to address emerging
issues and strike a balance between innovation
and protection.
In Japan, known for its innovation and
technological progress, the evolution of IPR has
been remarkable. Japan consistently ranks
among the world's top countries for patent
applications and grants. In 2019, Japan’s patent
office received over 340,000 applications,
demonstrating the nation's dedication to
safeguarding intellectual property. One
significant development in Japan’s IPR evolution
is the extension of patent protection in response
to technological advancements. Initially focused
on traditional industries like manufacturing and
chemicals, patents now cover a broader range of
fields due to the rise of digital technology and
electronics. Japan has granted patents for
innovations in artificial intelligence,
biotechnology, and software, highlighting its
commitment to protecting intellectual property in
emerging sectors.
The evolution of intellectual property
frameworks in Sub-Saharan Africa has been
notable, with countries in the region
progressively establishing and enhancing these
frameworks over the past decade. South Africa,
for instance, has been at the forefront of adopting
modern IP legislation, aligning its policies with
international standards. A significant aspect of
this evolution is the increasing emphasis on
protecting traditional knowledge and cultural
expressions (Adams, 2023). Kenya, among other
countries, has acknowledged the significance of
safeguarding traditional knowledge and folklore.
The following table provides an overview of
patent applications, industry leadership, IP
framework development and protection of
traditional knowledge and cultural expressions in
Japan, the UK, South Africa and the US (See
Table 1).
Volume 13 - Issue 74
/ February 2024
219
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 1.
Intellectual property landscape in Japan, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and the United States.
Indicator
Japan
United
Kingdom
South Africa
United States
Leadership in
Technological
innovations
Digital
innovations
Legislative stability
Technological
innovations
Development of IP
framework
Broad
Adapted
Strengthened
Strengthened
Protection of traditional
knowledge
Minimal
Unknown
Active protection
Minimal
Enhanced protection of
cultural expressions
Minimal
Unknown
Protection exists
Minimal
Source: Bowie (2005), Adams (2023).
Over the preceding three years, the European
Union (EU) has undertaken a series of legislative
measures aimed at fortifying copyright and
associated rights within the framework of the
Digital Single Market. One pivotal development
was the adoption of Directive (EU) 2019/789 by
the European Parliament on April 17, 2019
(European Parliament & Council, 2019a). This
directive lays down regulations governing the
use of certain online transmission organizations
and the retransmission of television and radio
programs. Simultaneously, it addresses the
incorporation of Council Directive 93/83/EU
(2019), which streamlines cross-border
transmission of radio broadcasting via satellite
networks (Yavorska & Boyarska, 2020).
Another significant stride was the approval of
Directive (EU) 2019/790 by the Parliament and
the Council on the same date. This directive is
instrumental in delineating copyright and
additional rights within the Single Digital Market
(European Parliament & Council, 2019b).
Furthermore, it introduces amendments to
Regulations 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (2019),
serving to complement and augment existing
directives that oversee pertinent matters in the
digital landscape (Yavorska & Boyarska, 2020).
The regulatory landscape expanded with the
inception of Regulation (EU) 2019/517 by the
European Parliament and the Council on March
19, 2019. This regulation focuses on establishing
and administering the EU top-level domain name
(European Parliament & Council, 2019c).
Notably, it modifies and annuls Regulation (EC)
No. 733/2002 and repeals Commission
Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 (2019). By doing
so, it delineates critical parameters for EU top-
level domain names, contributing to the
overarching legal framework. Additionally,
Regulation (EC) No. 2017/1128, sanctioned by
the EU Parliament and Council on June 14, 2017,
pertains to the cross-border availability of
interactive content services in the internal market
(European Parliament & Council, 2017). This
regulation is instrumental in governing the
legitimate access to portable e-content by users,
ensuring accessibility at any given time and in
any country within the boundaries of the
European Union. The evolving needs of the
digital market, unfolding within the expansive
European Union, underscore the necessity for
continuous legislative adaptation. The digital
market is not only characterized by the free
movement of people and services but also by the
unimpeded flow of information and the Internet
(Yavorska & Boyarska, 2020). This underscores
the dynamic nature of EU legislation, responding
to the evolving landscape of the digital realm and
its multifaceted challenges.
Germany, a stalwart in technological and
industrial innovation, possesses a sophisticated
framework for the protection of intellectual
property (IP). Germany boasts a robust patent
system governed by the German Patent and
Trademark Office (DPMA) and aligns with the
European Patent Convention (EPC). The
country's commitment to innovation is evident
through the recognition of software as patentable
subject matter, a stance that aligns with the
European Patent Office (EPO) guidelines.
Notably, Germany plays a pivotal role in the
establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC),
a system designed to enhance patent enforcement
across participating EU countries. The German
Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) forms the
backbone of copyright protection in the country.
It safeguards the rights of authors and creators,
covering a spectrum of creative works. Germany,
acknowledging the digital age, has adapted its
copyright laws to address challenges such as
online piracy and the protection of digital
content. In addition, Germany participates in the
EU Trademark system, allowing businesses to
register trademarks with the European Union
Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
Nationally, the German National Institute of
Industrial Property (INPI) oversees trademarks.
220
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Germany's approach to trademarks reflects its
commitment to fostering a competitive business
environment while ensuring fair competition.
Besides, design protection in Germany is
administered by the German Patent and
Trademark Office. The country emphasizes the
safeguarding of designs, particularly in the
vibrant sectors of fashion and industrial design.
Germany's approach aligns with the EU
Directive on the Legal Protection of Designs,
ensuring harmonization within the European
context.
Hence, Germany stands as a paradigm of
effective intellectual property protection within
the EU. Its legislative frameworks,
encompassing patents, copyright, trademarks,
and design rights, demonstrate a commitment to
fostering innovation and creativity while
navigating the challenges posed by the digital
age. As Germany continues to play a central role
in shaping the European IP landscape, ongoing
adaptation and international collaboration remain
essential to address emerging complexities in the
field.
On the other hand, France boasts a sophisticated
and comprehensive legal framework for the
protection of intellectual property (IP), aligning
with both European Union directives and
international standards. The country's
commitment to fostering innovation and
creativity is evident in its robust laws governing
patents, trademarks, copyrights, and
geographical indications. Patents in France are
administered by the French National Industrial
Property Institute, which plays a pivotal role in
examining and granting patents. The institute
provides a platform for patent registration;
ensuring inventors' rights are protected.
France, being a participant in the Unified Patent
Court, contributes to a unified system for patent
litigation across EU countries. The UPC
enhances legal certainty and consistency in
patent disputes. Governed by the French
Intellectual Property Code, copyright law
protects the rights of authors and creators. The
Code encompasses a broad range of creative
works, including literary, artistic, and software
creations.
Poland has taken significant steps to enhance
intellectual property protection by establishing
specialized IP courts. These courts play a crucial
role in efficiently handling IP-related disputes,
contributing to a more streamlined legal process.
Poland's commitment to creating a specialized
judiciary reflects its dedication to the effective
enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Moreover, Poland has made substantial efforts to
harmonize its intellectual property laws with EU
directives (Sapiński & Szydłowski, 2022). This
commitment ensures that Poland's legal
framework aligns with European standards,
promoting consistency in IP protection across the
EU. The harmonization process reflects Poland's
dedication to fostering a unified and effective
intellectual property regime (Pelegrinová &
Lačný, 2016). Although not an EU member,
Switzerland collaborates closely with the
European Patent Organization and the EUIPO.
The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual
Property oversees patents, trademarks, and
designs, contributing to a comprehensive and
harmonized intellectual property landscape
(GGBA, (n.d.)). Switzerland's legal framework
aligns with international standards, ensuring a
robust protection system. Recognized as a hub
for pharmaceutical innovation, Switzerland
places a strong emphasis on the protection of
pharmaceutical patents (GGBA, (n.d.)). The
country's intellectual property laws strike a
balance between incentivizing innovation in the
pharmaceutical sector and addressing public
health considerations. Rigorous patent protection
measures contribute to fostering a conducive
environment for research and development. This
table highlights each country's approach to
intellectual property protection and innovation,
showcasing their efforts to support and protect
creativity, innovation, and traditional knowledge
(See Table 2)
Volume 13 - Issue 74
/ February 2024
221
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 2.
Approach to intellectual property protection and innovation
Germany
France
Poland
Switzerland
Patents
Germany boasts a
robust patent system
managed by the German
Patent and Trademark
Office (DPMA). It
actively contributes to
technological protection
and innovation.
France places emphasis
on technological
protection, recognizing
the importance of
patents in fostering
innovation.
Poland actively
supports innovation
through specialized
IP courts that
efficiently handle
patent-related
disputes.
Switzerland, a hub
for pharmaceutical
innovation, places a
strong emphasis on
protecting
pharmaceutical
patents. The legal
framework balances
innovation
incentives with
public health
considerations.
Copyright
Germany's copyright
framework, governed
by the
Urheberrechtsgesetz,
provides comprehensive
protection for authors.
The legal landscape
addresses challenges
posed by the digital
environment,
emphasizing the rights
of content creators.
France has strong
copyright protection,
recognizing moral
rights. The legal
framework ensures the
integrity and reputation
of creators.
Poland actively
harmonizes its
copyright laws with
EU directives,
adapting to the
digital landscape
and addressing
challenges in online
content distribution.
Switzerland
addresses challenges
in the digital
landscape, adapting
copyright laws to
protect the rights of
content creators and
foster creativity.
Trademarks
Germany adheres to the
EU Trademark system,
allowing businesses to
register trademarks with
the European Union
Intellectual Property
Office (EUIPO). The
country emphasizes
brand protection within
the European
framework.
France places a strong
emphasis on protecting
trademarks through
both national and EU
systems. Rigorous
trademark protection is
essential for preserving
brand integrity.
Poland, through
specialized IP
courts, enhances
enforcement of
trademark rights,
contributing to a
streamlined legal
process.
Switzerland
collaborates closely
with international
organizations,
contributing to a
comprehensive and
harmonized
intellectual property
landscape, including
trademark
protection.
Geographic
al
Indications
(GIs)
Protected and regulated
according to the
European system.
Examples are regional
varieties of wine,
cheese, etc.
France is renowned for
stringent protection of
Geographical
Indications (GIs).
Examples include
Champagne, Roquefort
cheese, and Bordeaux
wine. Protects the
authenticity and quality
of regional products.
Poland takes an
active role in
international
discussions and
forums focused on
the protection of
traditional
knowledge and
Geographical
Indications (GIs).
This proactive
engagement
demonstrates
Poland's
commitment to
contributing to
global conversations
surrounding the
preservation of
traditional practices,
cultural heritage,
and the distinctive
qualities of products
Switzerland, though
not an EU member,
has its system to
recognize and
protect Geographical
Indications (GIs).
The comprehensive
framework covers
diverse products like
agricultural produce,
food items, and
traditional crafts
with unique qualities
tied to specific
regions. Following
PDO and PGI
schemes similar to
the EU, Switzerland
ensures products
from specific areas
maintain distinct
qualities linked to
222
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
tied to specific
geographical
regions within the
country.
their geographical
origin.
Innovation
Support
Germany is recognized
for creating an
innovation-friendly
environment, with
various mechanisms
supporting research and
development.
France actively supports
innovation through
various mechanisms,
including tax incentives,
contributing to a culture
of research and
development.
Poland actively
supports innovation
through initiatives
such as tax
incentives, fostering
a culture of research
and development.
Switzerland actively
fosters innovation,
particularly in the
pharmaceutical
sector, providing a
conducive
environment for
research and
development.
Source: Romanyuk (2017), Pasechnyk (2022).
However, practical experience shows that the
digital space presents a myriad of challenges for
protecting intellectual property, encompassing
issues such as digital piracy, counterfeiting,
plagiarism, and cybersecurity threats. Many
modern authors emphasize this
(Bowie, 2005).Unauthorized distribution of
copyrighted content, the sale of counterfeit
goods, and the unauthorized use of creative
works are pervasive problems. Additionally,
increasing cybersecurity threats jeopardize the
integrity of digital IP. To address these
challenges, potential solutions include enhanced
digital rights management technologies, stricter
legal enforcement, and public awareness
campaigns to mitigate digital piracy.
Strengthening e-commerce platform monitoring,
implementing blockchain for supply chain
transparency, and fostering a culture of respect
for IP rights can combat counterfeiting and
trademark infringement. Solutions for plagiarism
involve content recognition technologies, a legal
framework supporting content creators, and
initiatives promoting awareness.Protecting
against cybersecurity threats to IP necessitates
robust cybersecurity measures, encryption
technologies, and regular audits of digital
infrastructure. A comprehensive strategy
involves global cooperation among
governments, law enforcement, and industry
stakeholders. Legal reforms to update and
harmonize IP laws, integrating advanced
technologies for proactive monitoring, and
promoting awareness are crucial components.
Blockchain technology offers transparent and
tamper-proof records of IP rights, while
collaboration between IP owners and technology
companies is essential for innovative solutions.
Strategic litigation against major infringers can
set precedents and deter others, contributing to a
more secure and respectful digital environment
for intellectual property. The Table 3 outlines the
main challenges and potential solutions that
should be implemented.
Table 3.
The main challenges and potential solutions of protection IP
Aspects of IP Protection
Challenges
Potential Solutions
Digital Piracy
Unauthorized distribution of
copyrighted content
Enhanced digital rights management (DRM)
technologies - Stricter legal enforcement -
Public awareness campaigns
Counterfeiting and
Trademark Infringement
Illicit reproduction and sale of
counterfeit goods
Strengthen e-commerce platform monitoring -
Implement blockchain for supply chain
transparency - International cooperation
Plagiarism and Content
Theft
Unauthorized use and
reproduction of creative works
Content recognition technologies - Legal
recourse for content creators - Educational
campaigns
Cybersecurity Threats to IP
Increasing cybersecurity threats
Robust cybersecurity measures - Encryption
technologies - Regular audits of digital
infrastructure
Global Cooperation
Cross-border challenges in
enforcement
Strengthen international collaboration and
information sharing - Harmonize legal
frameworks for international IP protection
Legal Reforms
Outdated or inconsistent IP laws
Update and harmonize intellectual property
laws - Clarify jurisdiction in cases of
international infringement
Volume 13 - Issue 74
/ February 2024
223
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Technology Integration
Emerging challenges in digital
landscapes
Embrace advanced technologies (AI, ML) for
proactive monitoring - Implement automated
takedown systems for infringing content
Education and Awareness
Lack of understanding about IP
importance
Promote awareness campaigns - Foster a culture
of respect for intellectual property
Blockchain for IP
Protection
Lack of transparent and tamper-
proof records
Leverage blockchain technology for transparent
IP records - Enhance traceability of ownership
Collaboration with Tech
Industry
Technology facilitating
infringement challenges
Encourage collaboration between IP owners
and tech companies - Develop innovative
solutions and best practices for protection
Strategic Litigation
Insufficient deterrents for major
infringers
Pursue strategic legal actions against major
infringers - Set legal precedents to deter others
Source: Malinovska (2018), Svitlak (2023).
Therefore, the multifaceted nature of intellectual
property protection in the digital age requires a
strategic and holistic approach. Legislative
reforms, technological integration, global
collaboration, and awareness initiatives are
crucial components of an effective strategy to
safeguard intellectual property rights in the ever-
evolving digital landscape.
In the context of the legal aspects of intellectual
property protection in the digital age, the
research undertaken has yielded significant
insights. The results indicate that the evolving
landscape of digital technology has posed
intricate challenges to the traditional framework
of intellectual property rights. The findings align
with Janković's (2017) exploration of diverse
legal aspects related to intellectual property
rights, emphasizing the need for procedural
considerations in the EU law context.
Furthermore, Pelegrinová and Lačný (2016) shed
light on the economic dimensions of intellectual
property protection, highlighting its critical role
in fostering economic development. The
obtained results resonate with Vindele and
Cane's (2022) exploration, emphasizing the
evolving role of intellectual property rights in the
technological age. However, in this dynamic
discourse, Cimoli, Dosi, Maskus, Okediji,
Reichman and Stiglitz (2014) conclusions on the
role of intellectual property rights in developing
countries present a contrasting perspective,
pointing towards the need for nuanced
considerations in diverse global contexts. The
results show that the multifaceted nature of
intellectual property rights requires a
comprehensive understanding of legal
intricacies, economic implications, and
technological advancements.
The obtained results indicate that legal
frameworks must adapt to the evolving digital
landscape, balancing the interests of creators and
the broader public. In comparing these findings
with existing literature, Janković's insights align
with the need for procedural advancements in EU
law, contributing to a nuanced legal framework.
Pelegrinová and Lačný's (2016) emphasis on
economic aspects resonates with the growing
recognition of intellectual property's crucial role
in driving economic prosperity. Vindele and
Cane's (2022) exploration of intellectual property
rights in the technological age aligns with the
broader discourse on the dynamic relationship
between innovation and legal protection.
However, Cimoli, Dosi, Maskus, Okediji and
Reichman (2014) conclusions provide a
divergent viewpoint, suggesting that the
implications of intellectual property rights vary
significantly in developing countries. Instead,
this study demonstrated that modern countries
are actively trying to develop their legal
framework in accordance with the challenges of
digitalization. This is especially noticeable from
the analysis of the legislative framework. Also,
this study demonstrated that the general
legislative frameworks of the EU countries are
adopted by the member countries and are actively
adapted and developed in different national base.
However, it is crucial to extend the discussion to
include Pick's (2022) work to provide a more
comprehensive understanding.The results
demonstrate that the legal protection of
Geographical Indications (GIs) is a vital
component in the broader discourse on
intellectual property. Pick's (2022) exploration of
the legal framework for GIs in France provides
an enriching perspective. The obtained results
indicate that the legal protection of GIs is
intricately linked to the overall intellectual
property landscape, reflecting the need for
specialized considerations in protecting regional
and traditional products. Comparing these
findings with the existing literature, Pick's (2022)
work aligns with the growing recognition of the
unique challenges and opportunities associated
with GIs. The emphasis on GIs in France, as
presented by Pick (2022), corresponds with the
broader global discourse on the protection of
regional identities and traditional knowledge.
Integrating this perspective into our discussion
224
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
enriches our understanding of the legal
intricacies surrounding intellectual property,
showcasing the need for specialized legal
frameworks to safeguard geographical
indications.
In conclusion, incorporating Pick's insights into
the discussion enhances the comprehensiveness
of this exploration. The legal protection of GIs in
France serves as a valuable case study,
illustrating the nuanced considerations required
for specific categories within the broader
spectrum of intellectual property. This further
reinforces the notion that a one-size-fits-all
approach is inadequate in addressing the diverse
challenges posed by the digital age. The
experiences of various countries, as explored in
Janković (2017), Pelegrinová, Lačný (2016) and
Pick (2022) work collectively underscore the
importance of a nuanced and adaptive legal
framework to effectively protect intellectual
property in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
The obtained results underscore the importance
of continuous analysis and adaptation of legal
frameworks to address emerging challenges.
They indicate the need for a balanced approach
that considers technological advancements,
economic implications, and global diversity. In
conclusion, while supporting our theory,
Janković (2017) contributes valuable
perspectives, Adams’s (2023) work highlights
the necessity for context-specific considerations
in the evolving discourse on intellectual property
rights. This comprehensive analysis reinforces
the notion that intellectual property protection in
the digital age demands a nuanced, globally
aware, and adaptive legal framework. Therefore,
this work has a significant and significant
contribution to the study of the experience of
countries in the context of the protection of
intellectual property in the digital age. Emphasis
on various aspects, such as legal tricks, economic
dimensions, and the impact of technology on
intellectual property, gives this study a wide
scope and depth. Therefore, this study makes a
significant contribution to solving intellectual
property issues, considering them in an
international context.
Conclusions
The evolution of intellectual property rights in
the digital age is a complex and dynamic process,
with various countries adapting their legal
frameworks to accommodate technological
advancements and changing economic
landscapes. In the United States, for example,
copyright, patenting, and trademark registration
have all seen significant growth, reflecting the
importance of IPR in fostering innovation and
creativity. Similarly, the UK and Japan have
witnessed notable developments in patent and
trademark protection, highlighting the global
nature of IPR evolution. Moreover, in Sub-
Saharan Africa, there is a growing emphasis on
protecting traditional knowledge and cultural
expressions, indicating a broader recognition of
the importance of intellectual property in diverse
cultural contexts. Overall, these trends
underscore the need for ongoing legal and policy
adjustments to address emerging challenges and
ensure a balance between protection and
accessibility in the digital era.
The European Union has implemented several
legislative measures to strengthen copyright and
associated rights in the Digital Single Market.
Germany's intellectual property protection
framework is sophisticated, with robust patent,
copyright, trademark, and design protection
systems. The country plays a central role in the
Unified Patent Court and emphasizes the
protection of digital content in its copyright laws.
France also has a comprehensive legal
framework for IP protection, aligning with EU
directives and international standards. The
country's laws governing patents, trademarks,
copyrights, and geographical indications reflect
its commitment to fostering innovation and
creativity. Poland has made significant efforts to
enhance IP protection, including establishing
specialized IP courts and harmonizing its laws
with EU directives. Switzerland, although not an
EU member, collaborates closely with EU
organizations and has a robust IP protection
system, particularly in pharmaceutical patents.
These countries' approaches to IP protection
demonstrate a commitment to fostering
innovation while addressing the challenges of the
digital age.
The digital space presents significant challenges
for protecting intellectual property, including
digital piracy, counterfeiting, plagiarism, and
cybersecurity threats. Unauthorized distribution
of copyrighted content, sale of counterfeit goods,
and unauthorized use of creative works are
widespread issues. Cybersecurity threats also
pose risks to digital IP integrity. Potential
solutions include enhancing digital rights
management technologies, enforcing stricter
legal measures, and raising public awareness to
combat digital piracy. Monitoring e-commerce
platforms, implementing blockchain for
transparency, and fostering respect for IP rights
can address counterfeiting and trademark
infringement. Solutions for plagiarism include
content recognition technologies and legal
Volume 13 - Issue 74
/ February 2024
225
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
frameworks supporting content creators.
Protecting against cybersecurity threats requires
robust measures, encryption technologies, and
regular infrastructure audits. A comprehensive
strategy involves global cooperation, legal
reforms, integration of advanced technologies,
and promoting awareness. Blockchain
technology can provide transparent records of IP
rights, and collaboration between IP owners and
technology companies is crucial. Strategic
litigation against major infringers can set
precedents and deter others, contributing to a
more secure digital environment for intellectual
property. So, this work has a significant
contribution to the study of the experience of
countries in the context of the protection of
intellectual property in the digital age. Hence,
this research makes a important contribution to
solving intellectual property issues, considering
them in an international context. Although the
used methodology provides a systematic
approach to the analysis of the problem of
intellectual property protection, it is worth
paying attention to certain limitations. First, the
methodology includes content analysis of digital
sources, while it may ignore non-traditional
sources such as industry reports or expert
opinions. At the same time, it is worth noting that
the study took into account the experience of EU
crises, while ignoring the experience of other
countries. Important directions for further
research are the analysis of concrete cases of
violations of intellectual property rights based on
practical legal consideration.
Bibliographic references
Adams, R. (2023). The Evolution of Intellectual
Property Rights in the Digital Age. Journal of
Modern Law and Policy, 3(2),
52-63. https://doi.org/10.47941/jmlp.1554
Brown, A., Yampolskiy, M., Gatlin, J., &
Andel, T. (2016). Legal aspects of protecting
intellectual property in additive
manufacturing. In Critical infrastructure
protection X (pp. 63–79). Springer
International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-48737-3_4
Bowie, N. E. (2005). Digital rights and wrongs:
Intellectual property in the information
age. Business and Society Review, 110(1),
77-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0045-
3609.2005.00005.x
Calista, J., Sudirman, M., & Djaja, B. (2023).
Legal Protection of Digital Painting Works as
Intellectual Property Right. Al-Hakim
Journal: Student Scientific Journal, Sharia
Studies, Law and Philanthropy, 5(2),
159-172.
https://doi.org/10.22515/jurnalalhakim.v5i2.
7656
Cho, S. H., & Kim, H. G. (2017). Intellectual
property rights protection and technological
innovation: The moderating effect of
internationalization. Multinational Business
Review, 25(4), 350-
368. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbr-04-2017-
0019
Cimoli, M., Dosi, G., Maskus, K. E.,
Okediji, R. L., Reichman, J. H., &
Stiglitz, J. E. (2014). 17 The Role of
Intellectual Property Rights in Developing
Countries: Some Conclusions. In Intellectual
Property Rights (pp. 503–513). Oxford
University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/97801996
60759.003.0017
European Parliament & Council. (2019a).
Directive (EU) 2019/789 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of April 17,
2019, on regulations governing the use of
certain online transmission organizations
and the retransmission of television and radio
programs. Retrieved from:
https://acortar.link/mLiB9q
European Parliament & Council. (2019b).
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of April 17,
2019, on copyright and additional rights
within the Single Digital Market. Amending
Regulations 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC
(2019). Retrieved from: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj
European Parliament & Council. (2019c).
Regulation (EU) 2019/517 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of March 19,
2019, on the establishment and
administration of the EU top-level domain
name. Modifying and annulling Regulation
(EC) No. 733/2002 and repealing
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004
(2019). Retrieved from: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/517/oj
European Parliament & Council. (2017).
Regulation (EC) No. 2017/1128 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of
June 14, 2017, on the cross-border
availability of interactive content services in
the internal market. Retrieved from:
https://acortar.link/z1r5mp
GGBA. (n.d). Intellectual property protection in
Switzerland. Retrieved from:
https://ggba.swiss/en/intellectual-property-
protection-in-switzerland/
Janković, D. (2017). Different legal aspects of
the intellectual property rights. In Procedural
aspects of eu law. Faculty of Law, Josip Juraj
226
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vol 1.
https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/6526
Kumar, N. V. (2012). Digital rights management
and intellectual property protection. SSRN
Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2030762
Litvishchenko, H. O. (2020). Legal protection of
tv format as intellectual property. Juridical
Scientific and Electronic Journal, (4),
457-459. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-
0374/2020-4/108
Malinovska, I. M. (2018). Modern trends of legal
protection intellectual property. Law and
Innovations, 3(23), 110-116.
https://doi.org/10.31359/2311-4894-2018-
23-3-110
Mansfield, E. (2000). Intellectual property
protection, direct investment and technology
transfer: Germany, Japan and the USA.
International Journal of Technology
Management, 19(1/2), 3.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2000.002805
Mula, D., & Lobina, M. L. (2012). Legal
protection of the web page. In Information
technology for intellectual property
protection (pp. 213–236). IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-135-
1.ch008
Nadobko, S. V. (2020). Intellectual property as
object of administrative legal protection.
Expert: Paradigm of Law and Public
Administration, 3(9), 141-149.
https://doi.org/10.32689/2617-9660-2020-
3(9)-141-149
Pasechnyk, O. (2022). International aspects of
intellectual property rights protection. Baltic
Journal of Economic Studies, 8(5), 146-157.
https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2022-8-
5-146-157
Pelegrinová, L., & Lačný, M. (2016). Protection
of intellectual property and its economic
aspects. Journal of Economic Development,
Environment and People, 5(3), 5-20.
https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v5i3.507
Pick, B. (2022). The legal protection of GIs in
France. In Intellectual property and
development (pp. 23-51). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003352105-3
Romanyuk, I. (2017). Intellectual property:
Criminal and legal aspects of research. Visnyk
of the National University “Lviv
Polytechnic”, 876(1), 284-289.
https://doi.org/10.23939/law2017.876.284
Sapiński, A., & Szydłowski, D. (2022). Paradigm
of philosophy of security in Poland through
the prism of pandemic and socio-political
changes: analysis of problem origin and risks
of spreading attention focus. Futurity
Philosophy, 1(3), 4-27.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FP.2022.09.30.01
Sofilkanych, N., Vesova, O., Kaminskyy, V., &
Kryvosheieva, A. (2023). The impact of
artificial intelligence on Ukrainian medicine:
benefits and challenges for the future.
Futurity Medicine, 2(4), 28-39.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FEM.2023.12.30.04
Svitlak, I. (2023). Cyber Military Threat and
International Law: Assessing the Response to
Cyber Attacks in the Military Context.
Futurity of Social Sciences, 1(1), 35-50.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FS.2023.03.20.03
Vindele, L., & Cane, R. (2022). The role of
intellectual property rights in the
technological age. Acta prosperitatis, 13,
182-197. https://doi.org/10.37804/1691-
6077-2022-13-182-197
Voronkova, V., Kapitanenko, N., &
Nikitenko, V. (2019). Legal principles of
intellectual property protection in the digital
society. ScienceRise: Juridical Science,
4(10), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.15587/2523-
4153.2019.188163
Yavorska, I., & Boyarska, S. (2020). Legal
regulation of the protection of intellectual
property rights within the EU digital market.
Visnyk of the Lviv University. Series
International Relations, (48).
https://doi.org/10.30970/vir.2020.48.0.11043
Yi, X., & Naghavi, A. (2017). Intellectual
property rights, FDI, and technological
development. The Journal of International
Trade & Economic Development, 26(4),
410-424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2016.1266
380