Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law

University of Massachusetts School of Law

Work

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Creativity Revisited, Ralph D. Clifford Jan 2018

Creativity Revisited, Ralph D. Clifford

Faculty Publications

The University of New Hampshire's Scholarship Redux Conference invited a reexamination of an earlier work of IP scholarship to address what has happened in the area since the time of its original publication. As my contribution to the Conference, I revisited my 1997 article that discussed the consequences of the increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence ("AI") on the production of new copyrightable or patentable works as well as the follow-up article I published in 2004 that focused expressly on copyright law. The primary call of the conference was to discuss the "legal predictions [that were] right -- or wrong!" In …


Intellectual Property Rights In An Attorney’S Work Product, Ralph D. Clifford Dec 2014

Intellectual Property Rights In An Attorney’S Work Product, Ralph D. Clifford

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This paper addresses the main intellectual property consequences of practicing law and whether attorneys can prevent others from using their work-product. The article does not assume that the reader is an expert in intellectual property law; instead, it is designed to answer the types of questions practitioners have about their rights. There is one primary legal code that impacts attorneys’ rights to their work-product: the copyright law. As a broad statement, copyright law protects how an author expresses ideas. It is the system that is used to prevent others from copying a book, a movie, a musical composition, or even …


Intellectual Property Rights In An Attorney’S Work Product, Ralph D. Clifford Jan 2008

Intellectual Property Rights In An Attorney’S Work Product, Ralph D. Clifford

Faculty Publications

This paper addresses the main intellectual property consequences of practicing law and whether attorneys can prevent others from using their work-product. The article does not assume that the reader is an expert in intellectual property law; instead, it is designed to answer the types of questions practitioners have about their rights.


Random Numbers, Chaos Theory, And Cogitation: A Search For The Minimal Creativity Standard In Copyright Law, Ralph D. Clifford Jan 2005

Random Numbers, Chaos Theory, And Cogitation: A Search For The Minimal Creativity Standard In Copyright Law, Ralph D. Clifford

Faculty Publications

This article explores the second type of expressive work, those where there is a question if the author’s contribution is qualitatively sufficient, to determine how much creativity and of what type is required to sustain a copyright. Initially, the historic standards of creativity use before Fiest was decided in 1991 will be presented. Then, after a brief discussion of Fiest, the scientific basis of creativity will be explored. Next, the confusion regarding creativity that exists in the lower courts will serve to expose the source of misapplication of the law – a disconnect between how courts perceive creativity and …


Intellectual Property In The Era Of The Creative Computer Program, Ralph D. Clifford Jan 1997

Intellectual Property In The Era Of The Creative Computer Program, Ralph D. Clifford

Faculty Publications

Computer scientists, using artificial intelligence techniques such as neural networks, are enabling computers to independently create works that appear to qualify for federal intellectual property protection. In at least one case, the creator of this kind of program has registered its output, a series of musical compositions, under his name as author with United States Copyright Office. Whether the output of the computer satisfies the statutory and constitutional requisites for protection is questionable, however. The author of this Article argues that the output of an autonomously creative computer program cannot be protected under the current copyright and patent laws. Further, …