REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/20065
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorVeiksa, Ingrida-
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-15T06:32:34Z-
dc.date.available2026-04-15T06:32:34Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationCreativity. Theories – Research – Applications, Vol. 8, Issue 2, 2021, pp. 53-66pl
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/20065-
dc.description.abstractOriginality 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.pl
dc.language.isoenpl
dc.publisherUniversity of Białystokpl
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.subjectcopyrightpl
dc.subjectmoral rightpl
dc.subjectcreativitypl
dc.subjectinfluencepl
dc.subjectappropriation plagiarismpl
dc.titleAssessing Creativity from the Viewpoint of Lawpl
dc.typeArticlepl
dc.rights.holder© 2021 Ingrida Veiksa, published by University of Białystokpl
dc.rights.holderThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.2478/ctra-2021-0017-
dc.description.Emailingrida.veiksa@gmail.compl
dc.description.AffiliationTuriba University, Latviapl
dc.description.referencesBerelis, G. (2004). Reading the judgment, Karogs, 8, 141–142.pl
dc.description.referencesBerne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works (1886). Signed in Berne on 9 September 1886.pl
dc.description.referencesBlomqvist, J. (2014). Moral Rights, Primer on International Copyright and Related Rights. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.pl
dc.description.referencesCofomel (2019). Cofemel v. G-Star Raw. The Court of Justice of The European Union, C-683/17.pl
dc.description.referencesCopeland v. Bieber (2015). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, (2015, No. 14–1427).pl
dc.description.referencesCopyright Law of the Republic of Latvia (2000). Latvijas Vēstnesis, no 148/150.pl
dc.description.referencesCopyright Law of the United States and Related Laws of the United States Code (2016).pl
dc.description.referencesCriminal Law of the Republic of Latvia (1998). Latvijas Vēstnesis no 199/200.pl
dc.description.referencesCropley, 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/CBO9780511761225.016pl
dc.description.referencesDirective 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.pl
dc.description.referencesDutfield, G., & Suthersanen, U. (2008). Copyright, Global Intellectual Property Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.pl
dc.description.referencesGinsburg, J.C., & Treppoz, E. (2015). International Copyright Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.pl
dc.description.referencesGoldstein, P. (2001). Protection under copyright and neighboring rights. International Copyright. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl
dc.description.referencesGreenberg, M.H. (2014). The neuroscience of creativity. Comic art, Creativity and the Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.pl
dc.description.referencesGruszka, 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_0003pl
dc.description.referencesHare, 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/10.11645/13.1.2640pl
dc.description.referencesImran, N. (2010). Electronic media, creativity and plagiarism. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 40(4), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929609.1929613pl
dc.description.referencesInfopaq (2008). Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening. The Court of Justice of the European Union, C-5/08.pl
dc.description.referencesKalnāja-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/pl
dc.description.referencesKalnāja-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.pdfpl
dc.description.referencesKasof, J. (1995). Explaining Creativity: The Attributional Perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8(4), 311–366. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0804_1pl
dc.description.referencesKaufman, J., & Beghetto, R. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688pl
dc.description.referencesKozbelt, 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/4.1.179pl
dc.description.referencesLacey-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-copyrightpl
dc.description.referencesLaw on Copyright and Related Rights, Lithuania (1999).pl
dc.description.referencesLebuda, 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-wpl
dc.description.referencesNaveed, I. (2010). Electronic media, creativity and plagiarism. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1145/1929609.1929613pl
dc.description.referencesPainer (2010). Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others. The Court of Justice of the European Union, C-145/10.pl
dc.description.referencesPaklone, I. (1997). Copyright. Handbook. AGB.pl
dc.description.referencesPaklone, 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=1pl
dc.description.referencesPelham (2019). Pelham v. Hütter, The Court of Justice of The European Union, C-476/17.pl
dc.description.referencesPerkal, 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/pl
dc.description.referencesRivers, T. (1998). Guide for Broadcasters on Legal Ownership, Acquisition, Payment, Enforcement and Administrative Management. EBU.pl
dc.description.referencesRosati, 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.htmlpl
dc.description.referencesRunco, M.A. (2007). Creativity Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.pl
dc.description.referencesRunco, M., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal – CREATIVITY RES J. 24. 92–96. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092pl
dc.description.referencesSanoma (2016) GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV. The Court of Justice of The European Union, C-160/15.pl
dc.description.referencesSatija, 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.39.2.13937pl
dc.description.referencesSatversme (The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia), (1993). Vēstnesis, 43.pl
dc.description.referencesStempel, 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-law-suit-over-kinky-boots-finale-idUSKCN1UZ2I2pl
dc.description.referencesSupreme Court of the Republic of Latvia (2014). State v. J.G., SKK-48/2014.pl
dc.description.referencesSvece, A. (2004). Plagiarism after the author’s death. Karogs, 8.pl
dc.description.referencesTorremans, P. & Holyoak, J. (1998). Intellectual Property Law. London, Edinburg, Dublin: Butterworths.pl
dc.description.referencesVentspils Court (2014). State v. pers. A, 140017314.pl
dc.description.referencesWehmeier, S. et al. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. 7th edition. Oxford University Press, 1780 p.pl
dc.description.referencesWhite, 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-chordspl
dc.description.referencesWIPR, (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-12605pl
dc.description.referencesŽīgurs, 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/pl
dc.identifier.eissn2354-0036-
dc.description.volume8pl
dc.description.issue2pl
dc.description.firstpage53pl
dc.description.lastpage66pl
dc.identifier.citation2Creativity. Theories – Research – Applicationspl
Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2021, Vol. 8, Issue 2

Pliki w tej pozycji:
Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
Creativity_8_2_2021_I_Veiksa_Assessing_Creativity.pdf220,05 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons