Copyright and CreativityExpressO (2007)
AbstractThis article challenges the commonly articulated position that copyright is designed for the protection of “creativity” and argues that the Supreme Court in the well known case of Feist v. Rural Telephone Service was wrong in appending, as a constitutional matter, a creativity requirement for copyright protection. The central thrust is that “creativity” is useless in making the basis intellectual property determination of whether a given work should be (a) protected under copyright, (b) protected under patent, or (c) not protected at all under intellectual property law, because all three categories routinely include creative works, even highly creative works, within their respective spheres. Numerous case examples illustrate the confusion that the Feist creativity requirement has engendered.
Publication DateSeptember, 2007
Citation InformationDennis S Karjala. "Copyright and Creativity" ExpressO (2007)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/dennis_karjala/1/