This article examines the relationship between the existence of control rights and property in separated human biomaterials. Much of the theory as to what constitutes property is examined and it is contended that Article 22 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine does not presuppose property in such materials. An analysis is undertaken of the case-law relating to control and property in sperm and embryos from the uk, Australia and the us and the shortcomings of utilising the property paradigm in these disputes are highlighted.