Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

Warner, J.: So mechanical or routine : the not original in Feist (2010) 0.01
```
0.014748218 = product of:
  0.029496435 = sum of:
    0.029496435 = product of:
      0.05899287 = sum of:
        0.05899287 = weight(_text_:v in 3444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05899287 = score(doc=3444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.219214 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044999957 = queryNorm
            0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 3444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

The United States Supreme Court case of 1991, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., continues to be highly significant for property in data and databases, but remains poorly understood. The approach taken in this article contrasts with previous studies. It focuses upon the not original rather than the original. The delineation of the absence of a modicum of creativity in selection, coordination, and arrangement of data as a component of the not original forms a pivotal point in the Supreme Court decision. The author also aims at elucidation rather than critique, using close textual exegesis of the Supreme Court decision. The results of the exegesis are translated into a more formal logical form to enhance clarity and rigor. The insufficiently creative is initially characterized as so mechanical or routine. Mechanical and routine are understood in their ordinary discourse senses, as a conjunction or as connected by AND, and as the central clause. Subsequent clauses amplify the senses of mechanical and routine without disturbing their conjunction. The delineation of the absence of a modicum of creativity can be correlated with classic conceptions of computability. The insufficiently creative can then be understood as a routine selection, coordination, or arrangement produced by an automatic mechanical procedure or algorithm. An understanding of a modicum of creativity and of copyright law is also indicated. The value of the exegesis and interpretation is identified as its final simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and potential practical utility.
Warner, J.: ¬The absence of creativity in Feist and the computational process (2010) 0.01
```
0.014748218 = product of:
  0.029496435 = sum of:
    0.029496435 = product of:
      0.05899287 = sum of:
        0.05899287 = weight(_text_:v in 4108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05899287 = score(doc=4108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.219214 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044999957 = queryNorm
            0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 4108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co. affirmed originality as a constitutional requirement for copyright. Originality has a specific sense and is constituted by a minimal degree of creativity and independent creation. The not original is the more developed concept within the decision. It includes the absence of a minimal degree of creativity as a major constituent. Different levels of absence of creativity also are distinguished, from the extreme absence of creativity to insufficient creativity. There is a gestalt effect of analogy between the delineation of the not original and the concept of computability. More specific correlations can be found within the extreme absence of creativity. "[S]o mechanical" in the decision can be correlated with an automatic mechanical procedure and clauses with a historical resonance with understandings of computability as what would naturally be regarded as computable. The routine within the extreme absence of creativity can be regarded as the product of a computational process. The concern of this article is with rigorously establishing an understanding of the extreme absence of creativity, primarily through the correlations with aspects of computability. The understanding established is consistent with the other elements of the not original. It also revealed as testable under real-world conditions. The possibilities for understanding insufficient creativity, a minimal degree of creativity, and originality, from the understanding developed of the extreme absence of creativity, are indicated.
Warner, J.: Creativity for Feist (2013) 0.01
```
0.014748218 = product of:
  0.029496435 = sum of:
    0.029496435 = product of:
      0.05899287 = sum of:
        0.05899287 = weight(_text_:v in 955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05899287 = score(doc=955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.219214 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044999957 = queryNorm
            0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=955)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

This paper develops an understanding of creativity to meet the requirements of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Feist v. Rural (1991). The inclusion of creativity in originality, in a minimal degree of creativity, and in a creative spark below the level required for originality, is first established. Conditions for creativity are simultaneously derived. Clauses negatively implying creativity are then identified and considered. The clauses that imply creativity can be extensively correlated with conceptions of computability. The negative of creativity is then understood as an automatic mechanical or computational procedure or a so routine process that results in a highly routine product. Conversely, creativity invariantly involves a not mechanical procedure. The not mechanical is then populated by meaning, in accord with accepted distinctions, drawing on a range of discourses. Meaning is understood as a different level of analysis to the syntactic or mechanical and also as involving direct human engagement with meaning. As direct engagement with meaning, it can be connected to classic concepts of creativity, through the association of dissimilars. Creativity is finally understood as not mechanical human activity above a certain level of routinicity. Creativity is then integrated with a minimal degree of creativity and with originality. The level of creativity required for a minimal degree is identified as intellectual. The combination of an intellectual level with a sufficient amount of creativity can be read from the exchange values connected with the product of creative activity. Humanly created bibliographic records and indexes are then possible correlates to, or constituents of, a minimal degree of creativity. A four-stage discriminatory process for determining originality is then specified. Finally, the strength and value of the argument are considered.