This document discusses creativity and intellectual property laws. It begins by questioning whether creativity is natural and does not require government incentives like intellectual property laws. It then defines creativity and discusses several factors that can influence creativity like environments, collaborators, and personality traits. The document notes that psychological research has provided insights into creativity and the creative process that could impact intellectual property law. Some key points made include that intrinsic motivation tends to enhance creativity more than extrinsic controls, collaboration allows building on ideas to increase creativity but IP laws can discourage it, and creativity in large groups faces challenges due to formal organization and anonymity. The document also debates issues around whether all creative ideas are good for society, how to measure and incentivize creativity, and balancing incent

1. CREATIVITY and Intellectual
Property Laws
Divya Tripathi
IT IS 6362
Spring 2015
Tech Policy
Presentation

2. Is creativity "natural" and thereby needs
no government monopoly as an
incentive? Would there be an
"adequate" supply of new and socially
beneficial songs, novels, inventions,
etc. without IP?

3. Definition:the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patte
rns, relationships,or the like, and to create meaningful new ide
as, forms, methods,interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiv
eness, or imagination
CREATIVI
TY

4. Even those of us not in explicitly creative fields must
come up with new ideas and insights in order to move
ahead. Creativity has been pegged to conducive
environments, perfect collaborators, personality traits,
serendipity, and even spiritual muses. Research
psychologists are interested in increasing innovative
thinking since a long time.

5. Overthe past several decades, however, a wealth of
psychological researchas provided new insights
into creativity and the creative process.This
research yields valuable lessons for intellectual
property law andindicates that certain areas of
patent and copyright law may
counterproductivelyhinder the very creativity that
the law is designed to inspire
(src: http://ndlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/Mandel.pdf )

6. In general, extrinsic motivation that confirms the creator’s
competence without instituting control can synergistically
enhance intrinsic motivation, while extrinsic influences
that are perceived as controlling counteract intrinsic
motivation, and can reduce creativity. While certain
aspects of intellectual property law may successfully
leverage the extrinsic motivation of a creativity prize,
other aspects are more troubling and should be revised in
light of these creativity studies.

7. Studies reveal that group collaboration can allow group
members to build on each others’ ideas in ways that
synergistically enhance individual and overall creativity.
Problematically, the laws of joint authorship and joint
inventorship in intellectual property actually dissuade
certain collaboration

8. Theories of creativity were developed
primarily in the context of individual and small-
group settings. Those theories face challenges
in large-scale settings because creativity in
such situations necessarily entails significant
degrees of formal organization and anonymity
for the contributor

9. Appropriateness, also referred to as
“adaptivity,” requires that an idea be
recognized as socially useful or “valuable in
some way to some community.” For a
technological invention, appropriateness will
often require functionality; for artistic
expression, it may require the ability to keep
the audience’s attention or cause a powerful
emotional effect

10. DEBATE
1. Creative ideas are just “creative” and may be good or bad for the society
2. Creativity can’t be measured- if use driven incentives are drawn it may take society
towards better or towards worse.
3. Handling creative ideas and its use require another creative idea not yet in existence- if
we think of restricting use of the idea, we can only hope to land upon a creative idea
which will ultimately benefit humankind and will not harm or be misused even if we
restrict creativity to be incentivized in only a few useful domains- like promoting health
and nutrition.

11. 4. If we don’t give incentive to people who bear a major
part of the world’s routine and mundane work, wouldn’t it
be an injustice towards their perseverance and hardwork?
5. Some people have a creative bent of mind like painters,
artists, etc. their nature of work requires creativity. But can
we say that their work has contributed towards serving
mankind as much as the poor agricultural worker who
works to produce food that so many people eat everyday?

12. 1. Even if we decide to build a system which
incentivizes creative people, who/what will
decide which idea is more creative? Wouldn’t it
be biased?
2. How to reward a group who synergistically
achieves creative results?
3. People who are innovators should also
have the option to gain ownership of
their ideas through protection via law or
to capitalize on them through incentives
drawn through these laws in a reasonable
and fair manner. That is to say, IP laws
must be made broader in scope and
more flexible and not too much
CONCLUSION

13. Thank You!