Creativity, Law and Entrepreneurship
Show Less

Creativity, Law and Entrepreneurship

Edited by Shubha Ghosh and Robin Paul Malloy

Creativity, Law and Entrepreneurship explores the idea of creativity, its relationship to entrepreneurship, and the law’s role in inhibiting and promoting it. The inquiry into law and creativity reduces to an inquiry about what people do, what activities and actions they engage in. What unites law and creativity, work and play, is their shared origins in human activity, however motivated, to whatever purpose directed. In this work contributors from the US and Europe explore the ways in which law incentivizes particular types of activity as they develop themes related to emergent theories of entrepreneurship (public, private, and social); lawyering and the creative process; creativity in a business and social context; and creativity and the construction of legal rights.
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 11: Institutionalization of Creativity in Traditional Societies and in International Trade Law

Christoph B. Graber


Christoph B. Graber INTRODUCTION Creativity is the humus of a prosperous and species-rich cultural environment. Intellectual property rights (IPRs)1 are pivotal in fostering creativity since they allow creators to refinance their investments in labour and capital. However, the interrelations between creativity and IPRs have been strongly criticized in the past few years by two groups of legal scholars approaching the topic from two distinct perspectives. The first group of critics fear that the combined effects of raised standards of IP protection2 and technological development endanger a vibrant public domain, which is a prerequisite for creativity in the internet age. With a focus on copyright law, this so-called public domain movement questions whether the existing IP model appropriately reflects the constitutional balance between the private interests of authors and the public interest in enjoying broad access to their productions.3 These critics doubt whether, under the conditions of a digital networked environment, the existing system of IP protection provides the best incentives to promote creativity. Arguably, this balance, constructed in a pre-internet area of lawmaking,4 has been disrupted since digitization and the internet inflated the value of copyright law5 and increased its domain.6 A second group of critics has been questioning the relationship of creativity and IPRs from a postcolonialist perspective. This group has been accusing modern IP law of having a colonising effect on indigenous creativity. Arguably, the modern legal narrative of IP is imposed on indigenous forms of social organization and cultural practice. Moreover, IP law reconstructs traditional...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.