Creative Approaches to the Creation of Contemporary Art Objects and Features of their Legal Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is devoted to the analysis of the current state of legislation of Ukraine and EU countries on copyright protection of works with an unstable form of expression, as well as to determine the features of the legal protection of such objects. The purpose of the article was to explore the existing possibilities in the law of Ukraine and the law of the EU countries for the protection of works with an unstable form of their expression. The article, based on the analysis of international legal acts and national legislation, highlights the elements of protection of works. A significant place in work is devoted to the analysis of theoretical, legislative approaches to the definition of "creativity", "originality", "novelty". It is stated that there is no single waste to the definition of these concepts in the literature and not regulated in the legislation in the field of copyright. A comparative legal analysis of the case-law of the United Kingdom and the United States on the provision of legal protection to works with an unstable form. It is concluded that the normative definition of “creative work”, which is associated exclusively with works of cultural value, is not acceptable for copyright. The article analyses the judicial practice of Ukraine, which has developed in the definition of creative work and illustrates its ambiguity. It is concluded that judges, considering such cases, try to find some stable elements that are inherent in works with an unstable form of expression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".