Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Creativity and Domain
- Part II Creativity in the Traditional Arts
- Part III Creativity in the Sciences
- Part IV Creativity in Business
- Part V Newer Domains for Creativity Research
- 24 Intellectual Property
- 25 Gastronomy and Culinary Creativity
- 26 Tactical Creativity in Sport
- 27 Creativity in Non-Human Animals
- 28 Violent Innovation
- Part VI Creativity in Everyday Life
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
24 - Intellectual Property
Does the Law Influence Creativity?
from Part V - Newer Domains for Creativity Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity Across Domains
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Creativity and Domain
- Part II Creativity in the Traditional Arts
- Part III Creativity in the Sciences
- Part IV Creativity in Business
- Part V Newer Domains for Creativity Research
- 24 Intellectual Property
- 25 Gastronomy and Culinary Creativity
- 26 Tactical Creativity in Sport
- 27 Creativity in Non-Human Animals
- 28 Violent Innovation
- Part VI Creativity in Everyday Life
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
Legal research on creativity centers on intellectual property law, a field of law that regulates rights in creations of the mind. Recent studies in this area explore how creativity is evaluated for purposes of awarding intellectual property rights, how the prospect of legal rights affects creativity, whether creativity impacts the valuation of subject works, and how the public conceptualizes creativity in relation to intellectual property rights. This body of research speaks to creativity studies in many domains and to the ability of intellectual property law to function as designed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 447 - 461Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
35 U.S.C. §103 (2012).Google Scholar
American Intellectual Property Law Association (2015). Model Patent Jury Instructions. AIPLA.Google Scholar
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27(3), 158–163.Google Scholar
Bechtold, S., Buccafusco, C., & Sprigman, C. J. (2016). Innovation heuristics: Experiments on sequential creativity in intellectual property. Indiana Law Review, 91, 1251–1307.Google Scholar
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903).Google Scholar
Brest, P., & Kreiger, L. H. (1999). Lawyers as problem solvers. Temple Law Review, 72(4), 811–832.Google Scholar
Buccafusco, C., & Sprigman, C. J. (2009). The creativity effect. University of Chicago Law Review, 78(1), 31–52.Google Scholar
Buccafusco, C., Burns, Z. C., Fromer, J. C., & Sprigman, C. J. (2014). Experimental tests of intellectual property laws’ creativity thresholds. Texas Law Review, 92(7), 1921–1980.Google Scholar
Burk, D. L., & Lemley, M. A. (2003). Policy levers in patent law. Virginia Law Review, 89(7), 1575–2003.Google Scholar
Burk, D. L., & Lemley, M. A. (2009). The patent crisis and how the courts can solve it. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, M. (2009). One size does not fit all: A framework for tailoring intellectual property rights. Ohio State Law Journal, 70(6), 1361–1434.Google Scholar
Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 539 U.S. 23 (2003).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, R. (1989). Patents and the progress of science: Exclusive rights and experimental use. University of Chicago Law Review, 56(3), 1017–1086.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51(11), 1153–1166.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 728.Google Scholar
Federal Circuit Bar Association (2010). Model Patent Jury Instructions. Federal Circuit Bar Association.Google Scholar
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).Google Scholar
Fromer, J. C. (2012). Expressive incentives in intellectual property. Virginia Law Review, 98(8), 1745–1824.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C. (2010). “European Copyright Code” – Back to first principles (with some additional detail). Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., 58(2), 265–300.Google Scholar
Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79–93.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. J. (1993). A property right in self-expression: Equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. Yale Law Journal, 102(7), 1533–1609.Google Scholar
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)Google Scholar
Hennessey, B. (2003). Is the social psychology of creativity really social? Moving beyond a focus on the individual. In Paulus, P. & Nijstad, B. (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 181–201). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1850).Google Scholar
Jaffe, A.B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents. How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszi, P. (1991). Towards a theory of copyright: The metamorphoses of “authorship.” Duke Law Journal, 40(2), 455–502.Google Scholar
Korobkin, R. B. (2003). The endowment effect and legal analysis. Northwestern Law Review, 97(3), 1227–1291.Google Scholar
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).Google Scholar
Kwall, R. (2001). “Author-Stories:” Narrative’s implications for moral rights and copyright’s joint authorship doctrine, Southern California Law Review, 75(1), 1–64.Google Scholar
Mandel, G. N. (2006). Patently non-obvious: Empirical demonstration that the hindsight bias renders patent decisions irrational. Ohio State Law Journal, 67(1), 1391–1463.Google Scholar
Mandel, G. N. (2007). Patently non-obvious II: Experimental study on the hindsight bias issue before the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 9(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Mandel, G. N. (2010). Left brain v. right brain: Competing conceptions of creativity in intellectual property law. University of California Law Review, 44(1), 283–361.Google Scholar
Mandel, G. N. (2011). To promote the creative progress: Intellectual property law and the psychology of creativity. Notre Dame Law Review, 86(5), 1999–2026.Google Scholar
Mandel, G. N. (2012). Proxy signals: Capturing private information for public benefit. Washington University Law Review, 90(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Mandel, G. N. (2014). The public perception of intellectual property. Florida Law Review, 66(1), 261–312.Google Scholar
Mandel, G. N. Fast, A. A., & Olson, K. R. (2016). Intellectual property law’s plagiarism fallacy. BYU Law Review 2015, 915–984.Google Scholar
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. (1999). Lawyer as problem solver and third-party neutral: Creativity and nonpartisanship in lawyering, Temple Law Review, 72(4), 785–810.Google Scholar
Merges, R. (2011). Justifying intellectual property. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, K. R., & Shaw, A. (2011). “No fair, copycat!”: What children’s response to plagiarism tells us about their understanding of ideas. Developmental Science, 14(2), 431–439.Google Scholar
Parchomovsky, G., & Stein, A. (2009). Originality. Virginia Law Review, 95(6), 1505–1550.Google Scholar
Park, C. (2003). In (other) people’s words: Plagiarism by students – literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471–488.Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (2005). The (relatively) generalist view of creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 307–312). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Creativity, innovation, and obviousness. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 12(2), 461–488.Google Scholar
Shaw, A., & Olson, K. (2014). Whose idea is it anyway? The importance of reputation in acknowledgement. Developmental Science, 18(3), 502–509.Google Scholar
Silbey, J. (2008). The mythical beginnings of intellectual property, George Mason Law Review, 15(2), 319–382.Google Scholar
Silbey, J. M. (2015). The eureka myth: Creators, innovators and everyday intellectual property. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Torrance, A. W., & Tomlinson, B. (2009). Patents and the regress of the useful arts. Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, 10, 130–168.Google Scholar
Torrance, A. W., & Tomlinson, B. (2011). Property rules, liability rules, and patents: One experimental view of the cathedral. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 14(1), 138–161.Google Scholar
US Constitution art. I, § 8, cl. 8.Google Scholar