Spark of Creativity or Judgement: Originality Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Originality is an essential requirement for the copyrightability of any artistic and literary work. Creative works are afforded copyright protection only if they are original. Originality has yet to be defined by international or national laws including Iranian Laws. The judicial interpretation of national laws also differ from one another and there is no consensus on the concept of Originality. Under traditional approach, Originality is often referred as to "labor and effort" or "self expression " of the author, whereas the more approach is that of "creativity " and exercise of "skill and judgment ". However, all legal systems recognize that the work must be independent and not copied from another work.The main question of this Article is which approach can strike a balance between author’s rights and public interest to cheap and easy access to artistic works. This article will examine originality under different jurisdictions and concludes the Canadian definition is the more appropriate approach to the said question. Finally, it suggests that the Iranian legislature shall replace the term “creativity” with “skill and judgment” in 14 of article 1 of the copyright bill.
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 | 0.076 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".