Securities Attorney for Going Public Transactions

Securities Lawyer Blog

knowledge itself is power

Creativity and the Requirement for Human Authors and Inventors in IP Law

Introduction

In the realm of intellectual property (IP) law, creativity holds a significant place. The U.S. courts have consistently ruled that authors and inventors must be human, under both copyright and patent laws. This requirement is intricately tied to the concept of creativity, a term we often intuitively understand but rarely scrutinize deeply. What exactly makes something creative? And how does this concept influence IP law?

I recently had the opportunity to explore these questions during a sabbatical at Oxford University, where I convened a working group of multidisciplinary scholars. Our deep dive into the nature of creativity provided valuable insights that are particularly relevant for understanding the human requirement in IP law.

Defining Creativity

Creativity can be applied to both artifacts (things or ideas) and the mental process that generates these artifacts. Here’s a closer look at the different dimensions of creativity:

1. External Creativity

External creativity refers to the creativity of artifacts. A standard definition of external creativity includes artifacts that are new and valuable, with some definitions also requiring that the artifact be surprising. This means that novelty alone is not sufficient for something to be considered creative; it must also have value, whether in monetary terms or broader cultural significance. In this context, generative AI (GAI) outputs might be considered creative, as they often produce novel and sometimes valuable results.

2. Psychological Creativity

Psychological creativity pertains to the mental processes behind creative ideas. This can occur through sudden inspiration or after extensive effort and spans various fields, including arts and sciences. Recent scholarship suggests that creativity involves an interaction between different parts of the brain: the Central Executive Network (CEN), responsible for task-focused activities; the Default Mode Network (DMN), associated with daydreaming and free association; and the Salience Network (SN), which identifies meaningful or relevant connections. These networks work together to foster creativity by merging domain-specific knowledge with innovative insights.

3. Social Context

Creativity also involves a social dimension. For something to be deemed valuable, it must be assessed within a social context. Similarly, the identification of relevant ideas by the SN is influenced by societal norms and boundaries. Even avant-garde creativity, which challenges these norms, is defined in relation to them.

Creativity and IP Law

Examining these aspects of creativity, we considered their relevance to IP law. Is copyright solely focused on the external creativity of the artifact, such as a text, image, or music? Is patent law concerned only with the creativity of the invention as expressed in the patent?

1. Copyright Law

In copyright law, the requirement for a human author is linked not just to the external creativity of the work but also to the psychological process of creativity. The originality and expression involved in creating a copyrighted work are deeply rooted in human cognitive processes.

2. Patent Law

Similarly, in patent law, the inventive step or non-obviousness criterion reflects the psychological aspect of creativity. The insights and connections that lead to an invention are products of human thought processes, which generative AI models cannot replicate.

Conclusion

Our exploration revealed that both the psychological and social aspects of creativity are crucial in IP law. While generative AI can produce novel and valuable artifacts, it lacks the psychological creativity inherent in human authors and inventors. This distinction underscores the importance of maintaining the human requirement in IP law.

Understanding the multifaceted nature of creativity enriches our appreciation of why IP laws are designed to protect human innovation. As technology continues to advance, these insights will help guide the legal frameworks that support and encourage genuine creative efforts.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance on intellectual property matters, please consult with a legal professional.

Gayatri Gupta