1. bookVolume 8 (2021): Edizione 2 (December 2021)
Dettagli della rivista
Prima pubblicazione
16 Apr 2015
Frequenza di pubblicazione
2 volte all'anno
Accesso libero

Assessing Creativity from the Viewpoint of Law

Pubblicato online: 20 Nov 2021
Volume & Edizione: Volume 8 (2021) - Edizione 2 (December 2021)
Pagine: 53 - 66
Ricevuto: 04 Jun 2020
Accettato: 13 Dec 2020
Dettagli della rivista
Prima pubblicazione
16 Apr 2015
Frequenza di pubblicazione
2 volte all'anno

Originality is the main criterion for creating an author’s work. However, authors are often influenced by previous works of other authors that they have seen, heard or experienced. The aim of this study is to identify criteria for determining creativity in authors’ works, trying to find and define the difference between accidental influence and deliberate misappropriation or plagiarism. This article does not claim an in-depth analysis of creativity and originality from a social science perspective. It is more a scientific essay on creativity from a law science point of view, so that further research can be carried out in the field of authorship and its determination. In order to find an answer to the research question (Where does influence end and plagiarism begin?), theoretical framework and knowledge about creativity were observed, international and national laws were studied, case law from different countries was researched, materials of international conferences were examined, as well as information accessible on the Internet on copyright issues was observed. The research used a descriptive method to investigate the works of various researchers on the types of mutual influence, regulatory framework and court practice in this field, as well as a grammatical, systemic, teleological, and historical interpretation of legal norms to assess the inadequacy of existing legal norms and propose the necessary amendments in legislative enactments. The main result of this study is understanding that the factor of consciousness or subconscious forms the main criteria. If the influence is unintentional, the copyright of the original work is not infringed, but if repetition is intentional, when it goes beyond originality, the new work is considered to be an appropriation of authorship or plagiarism.


Berelis, G. (2004). Reading the judgment, Karogs, 8, 141–142. Search in Google Scholar

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works (1886). Signed in Berne on 9 September 1886. Search in Google Scholar

Blomqvist, J. (2014). Moral Rights, Primer on International Copyright and Related Rights. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Cofomel (2019). Cofemel v. G-Star Raw. The Court of Justice of The European Union, C-683/17. Search in Google Scholar

Copeland v. Bieber (2015). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, (2015, No. 14–1427). Search in Google Scholar

Copyright Law of the Republic of Latvia (2000). Latvijas Vēstnesis, no 148/150. Search in Google Scholar

Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws of the United States Code (2016). Search in Google Scholar

Criminal Law of the Republic of Latvia (1998). Latvijas Vēstnesis no 199/200. Search in Google Scholar

Cropley, A. (2010). Creativity in the Classroom: The Dark Side. In D. Cropley, A. Cropley, J. Kaufman, & M. Runco (Eds.), The Dark Side of Creativity (pp. 297–315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761225.01610.1017/CBO9780511761225.016 Search in Google Scholar

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10–19. Search in Google Scholar

Dutfield, G., & Suthersanen, U. (2008). Copyright, Global Intellectual Property Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Ginsburg, J.C., & Treppoz, E. (2015). International Copyright Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Goldstein, P. (2001). Protection under copyright and neighboring rights. International Copyright. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Greenberg, M.H. (2014). The neuroscience of creativity. Comic art, Creativity and the Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Gruszka, A. & Tang, M. (2017). The 4P’s Creativity Model and its application in different fields. May 2017. Handbook of the management of creativity and innovation: Theory and practice. World Scientific Press (pp. 51–71). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813141889_000310.1142/9789813141889_0003 Search in Google Scholar

Hare, J., & Choi, K. (2019) Attribution and plagiarism in the creative arts: A flipped information literacy workshop for postgraduate students. Journal of Information Literacy, 13(1), 62–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/13.1.264010.11645/13.1.2640 Search in Google Scholar

Imran, N. (2010). Electronic media, creativity and plagiarism. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 40(4), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929609.192961310.1145/1929609.1929613 Search in Google Scholar

Infopaq (2008). Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening. The Court of Justice of the European Union, C-5/08. Search in Google Scholar

Kalnāja-Zelča, I. (2014). Insight into the systems of copyright protection tradition. Jurista Vārds, 15.04.2014., 15(817), 8–15. http://www.juristavards.lv/doc/264224-ieskats-autora-tiesibu-aizsardzibas-tradiciju-sistemas/ Search in Google Scholar

Kalnāja-Zelča, I. (2014). What is plagiarism and how to avoid it? Eversheds Bitans. http://www.visc.gov.lv/vispizglitiba/saturs/dokumenti/metmat/skaidrojums_par_autortiesibam.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining Creativity: The Attributional Perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8(4), 311–366. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0804_110.1207/s15326934crj0804_1 Search in Google Scholar

Kaufman, J., & Beghetto, R. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001368810.1037/a0013688 Search in Google Scholar

Kozbelt, A. (2020). Introduction. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, (2nd ed.), 761 p. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.26613/esic/4.1.179 Search in Google Scholar

Lacey-Smith, T. (2019). The balance between creative freedom and protecting copyright. World IP Review 10-07-2019. https://www.worldipreview.com/contributed-article/the-balance-between-creative-freedom-and-protecting-copyright Search in Google Scholar

Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Lithuania (1999). Search in Google Scholar

Lebuda, I., Karwowski, M., & Galang, A.J.R. et al. (2019). Personality predictors of creative achievement and lawbreaking behavior. Curr Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00306-w10.1007/s12144-019-00306-w Search in Google Scholar

Naveed, I. (2010). Electronic media, creativity and plagiarism. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1145/1929609.192961310.1145/1929609.1929613 Search in Google Scholar

Painer (2010). Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others. The Court of Justice of the European Union, C-145/10. Search in Google Scholar

Paklone, I. (1997). Copyright. Handbook. AGB. Search in Google Scholar

Paklone, I. (2014). The concept of authorship of literary work: contextual aspects. Doctoral thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philology. Riga, Latvian University, 88. https://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/5253/44887-Inese_Paklone_2014.pdf?sequence=1 Search in Google Scholar

Pelham (2019). Pelham v. Hütter, The Court of Justice of The European Union, C-476/17. Search in Google Scholar

Perkal, P.J. (2018). The Art of Sampling in the Metall auf Metall case: a new form of artistic expression or mere infringement of copyright and related rights? (April 24, 2018). http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/04/24/art-sampling-metall-auf-metall-case-new-form-artistic-expression-mere-infringement-copyright-related-rights/ Search in Google Scholar

Rivers, T. (1998). Guide for Broadcasters on Legal Ownership, Acquisition, Payment, Enforcement and Administrative Management. EBU. Search in Google Scholar

Rosati, E. (2018). The AG Opinion in Metall auf Metall: it’s not a fundamental rights violation to say that sampling requires a licence. The IPKat (14.12.2018). https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-ag-opinion-in-metall-auf-metall-its.html Search in Google Scholar

Runco, M.A. (2007). Creativity Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar

Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal – CREATIVITY RES J. 24. 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.65009210.1080/10400419.2012.650092 Search in Google Scholar

Sanoma (2016) GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV. The Court of Justice of The European Union, C-160/15. Search in Google Scholar

Satija, M.P., & Martínez-Ávila, D. (2019). Plagiarism: An essay in terminology. DESIDOC: Journal of Library & Information Technology, 39(2) (November 2019): 87–93. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.2.13937 Search in Google Scholar

Satversme (The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia), (1993). Vēstnesis, 43. Search in Google Scholar

Stempel, J. (2019). Cyndi Lauper settles copyright lawsuit over ‘Kinky Boots’ finale. Reuters, August 10, 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-lauper-kinky-boots/cyndi-lauper-settles-copyright-lawsuit-over-kinky-boots-finale-idUSKCN1UZ2I2 Search in Google Scholar

Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia (2014). State v. J.G., SKK-48/2014. Search in Google Scholar

Svece, A. (2004). Plagiarism after the author’s death. Karogs, 8. Search in Google Scholar

Torremans, P. & Holyoak, J. (1998). Intellectual Property Law. London, Edinburg, Dublin: Butterworths. Search in Google Scholar

Ventspils Court (2014). State v. pers. A, 140017314. Search in Google Scholar

Wehmeier, S. et al. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. 7th edition. Oxford University Press, 1780 p. Search in Google Scholar

White, A. (2014). 73 Songs You Can Play With The Same Four Chords. BuzzFeed News (2014, April). https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/73-songs-you-can-play-with-the-same-four-chords Search in Google Scholar

WIPR, (2016). “Justin Bieber copyright dispute should be dismissed, says judge” (2016, November). https://www.worldipreview.com/news/justin-bieber-copyright-dispute-should-be-dismissed-says-judge-12605 Search in Google Scholar

Žīgurs, R. (2017). The Concept of Appropriation in the Art Law. Jurista vārds 1.08.2017. NR. 32 (986). https://juristavards.lv/doc/271110-piesavinasanas-jedziens-makslas-tiesibas/ Search in Google Scholar

Articoli consigliati da Trend MD

Pianifica la tua conferenza remota con Sciendo