Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Research Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CleanUrl: research Description A description of the content of the resource or work Entries in this section of the Copyright Cortex include both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed research, exploring the law of copyright and its effects on policy and practice in a variety of cultural heritage contexts. From managing the risks associated with making orphan works available online to claiming copyright in digital surrogates of public domain works, this section catalogues data, evidence, and commentary across a wide range of topics. If you have any recommendations for material that should feature in this section of the Copyright Cortex please do let us know. You can contact us at: <a href="mailto:info@copyrightcortex.org">info@copyrightcortex.org</a> Journal Article URL http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0t95v7n7 Volume 15 Pages (from-to) 169-201 pp. Journal Title UCLA Entertainment Law Review Issue Number 2 Institution University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Copyright and Creativity Description A description of the content of the resource or work This journal article considers the creativity requirement in the unanimous US Supreme Court decision in Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. The author argues that the requirement for creativity in addition to originality to qualify for protection will eventually lead to both under- and over-protection of works, either through market failure or through the expansion of the scope of protection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dennis S. Karjala Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2008-1-1 Abstract A summary of the resource. This 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. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Language A language of the resource ENG Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CleanUrl: copyright-creativity Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource All Rights Reserved Copyright Cortex Fields Extra CC fields for copyright information Visual Date Date of creation or availability of the resource that is shown to users. To be formatted as follows: 2017 January 7 2008 Jurisdiction United States Size Details about the size of the resource (can be Bytes, Pages or Duration, depending on item type.) 2.3 MB 34 pp. Copyright Information Information about the copyright status of the record. In Copyright Keywords A selection of keywords that pertain to the article attached. originality copyright reform copyright infringement creativity Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co market failure qualification scope of protection Section 102b US Copyright Act sweat of the brow