Originality of the word

оригинальность, самобытность, новизна, уникальность, подлинность, свежесть

существительное ↓

Словосочетания

a performance full of sparkle and originality — блестящее и оригинальное выступление  
doubt a picture’s originality — сомневаться в подлинности картины  
doubt of a picture’s originality — сомневаться в подлинности картины  
doubt picture’s originality — сомневаться в подлинности картины  
originality of formulation — оригинальность рецептуры  
originality of fragrance — оригинальность запаха  
itch of originality — стремление быть оригинальным  
a mind of great originality — необыкновенно оригинальный ум  
artistic originality — художественная самобытность  
in the quest for originality — в погоне за оригинальностью  
man of great originality — необыкновенно оригинальный человек  

Примеры с переводом

Примеры, ожидающие перевода

Resources

Last Update: Jan 03, 2023

This is a question our experts keep getting from time to time. Now, we have got the complete detailed explanation and answer for everyone, who is interested!

Asked by: Tristin Kessler

Score: 4.8/5
(46 votes)

Words related to originality

individuality, boldness, daring, ingenuity, freshness, brilliance, cleverness, resourcefulness, imagination, innovation, inventiveness, spirit, newness, novelty, creativity, invention, innovativeness, ingeniousness, imaginativeness, nonconformity.

What is another word for originality?

In this page you can discover 38 synonyms, antonyms, idiomatic expressions, and related words for originality, like: creativity, ingenuity, creativeness, inventiveness, ingeniousness, innovation, invention, conception, realization, authenticity and novelty.

What is the meaning of the word originality?

1 : the quality or state of being original. 2 : freshness of aspect, design, or style. 3 : the power of independent thought or constructive imagination.

What is the antonym of originality?

Opposite of the use of imagination or original ideas to create something. unimaginativeness. unoriginality. uninventiveness. banality.

What is an example of originality?

Originality is the quality of being new and inventive. A composer who writes a symphony to be played by car horns and cell phones shows great originality. When something is original, it is creative and not derived from something else.

20 related questions found

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originality is the aspect of created or invented works that distinguish them from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or substantially derivative works.^{[citation needed]} The modern idea of originality is according to some scholars tied to Romanticism,^[1] by a notion that is often called romantic originality.^[2][3][4] The validity of «originality» as an operational concept has been questioned. For example, there is no clear boundary between «derivative» and «inspired by» or «in the tradition of.»

The concept of originality is both culturally and historically contingent. For example, unattributed reiteration of a published text in one culture might be considered plagiarism but in another culture might be regarded as a convention of veneration. At the time of Shakespeare, it was more common to appreciate the similarity with an admired classical work, and Shakespeare himself avoided «unnecessary invention».^[5][6][7] It wasn’t until the start of the 18th century that the concept of originality became an ideal in Western culture.^[5][8]

Originality in law[edit]

In law, originality has become an important legal concept with respect to intellectual property, where creativity and invention have manifest as protectable or copyrightable works.^{[clarification needed]}
In the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) that has been adapted by 181 countries and city-states, «original work» gives a creator exclusive rights; protection for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared.

In the patent law of the United States, only original inventions can be subject to protection. In addition to being original, inventions submitted for a patent must also be useful and nonobvious.^{[citation needed]}

In United States copyright law copyrights protect only original works of authorship, a property which has been historically and legally linked to a concept of «creativity». A work must pass a threshold of originality in order to be copyrightable.^[9] In other countries protection of a work often is connected to similar conditions.

In United Kingdom intellectual property law, a derived work can demonstrate originality, and must do so if it is to respect copyright.^{[citation needed]}

Originality under United States copyright law[edit]

In the copyright law of the United States, more specifically under 17 U.S.C 102, the work that is sought to be protected must satisfy the threshold for originality.^[10] Though most of the countries require certain degree of originality in the work sought to be protected, such requirement does not stem from either the Berne Convention or the TRIPS Agreement.^[11] Therefore, there is no uniformity in the standard for originality. In the United States, originality necessitates bare minimum degree of creativity and independent creation.^[12] The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co.^[13] held that the work must be independently created and must possess minimum degree of creativity. This interpretation requires an extremely low level of creativity and in the words of the court, “must possess some creative spark no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be.”^[14] The court also took the opportunity to reject the previously judicially-established and followed the sweat of the brow doctrine. According to the said doctrine, labour and hard-work alone could suffice to establish originality. After the doctrine was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1991, in the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp^[15] case, the court held that the copies of public domain photographs could not be copyrighted since they lacked originality and while such reproductions may have involved skill and labour, no protection could be granted to them, on account of lack of originality.

While the current legal requirements of originality viz. minimum level of creativity and independent labour can be easily assessed and applied in case of literary works, the courts are required to undertake a deeper legal and factual inquiry in photographic works. The United States District Court for Southern District of New York in Mannion v. Coors Brewing Company^[16] considered originality in terms of timing, subject and rendition, and held that the nature and extent of the copyright would be independent in the three aspects. The requirement for originality was incorporated in the statute only in the Copyright Act, 1976 and over the course of time, the courts have evolved various metrics to apply the test.^[17] Unlike, Patents, novelty is not required for a work to be considered as original.^[18] The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Sheldon (1936)^[19] had clarified that sometimes it is relevant for other purposes. Therefore, if the work created by you is identical to a pre-existing work but you are unaware of the latter’s existence, you may still enjoy copyright protection for your work.

Apart from novelty, the work is not required to be made with an intent to be original. What is considered is only that it is actually an independent creation in effect. In 1951, the court in Alfred Bell Co. v. Catalda Arts^[20] held that the question as to whether there was intent to be original was not to be considered. The Supreme Court of the United States has also clarified that it is not necessary for the work to be artistic to qualify as original. Furthermore, in the landmark ruling, the court observed that it would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme, some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke. It may be more than doubted, for instance, whether the etchings of Goya or the paintings of Monet would have been sure of protection when seen for the first time. At the other end, copyright would be denied to pictures which appealed to a public less educated than the judge. This observation was an embodiment of the principle of artistic or aesthetic neutrality which seeks to eliminate the inherent subjectivity involved in the judges deciding whether the work is artistic, and hence, the question as to whether it warrants protection. The principle finds four broad justifications- (i) lack of expertise in the judges (ii) fear of elitism (iii) fear of paternalism (also called parentalism) (iv) lack of consensus on what constitutes art. However, scholars note that the principle of aesthetic neutrality is often violated as the adjudicators end up favouring creators of what they believe is deserving of copyright grant.

In the United States, the work is not required to be non-commercial in nature for copyright protection and unlike the US trademark law, the work need to be necessarily lawful. Therefore, works created for commercial purposes, such as advertisements can also be granted a copyright.^[21]

Originality under Indian copyright law[edit]

Section 13(1)(a) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 mentions ‘originality’ as a requirement for copyright protection to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. Courts have interpreted this requirement of ‘originality’ in different ways. This has given rise to various doctrines/tests that can be helpful in determining whether a work meets the threshold of originality. The most prominent case with respect to ‘originality’ under the Indian Copyright Law is the Eastern Book Company v DCB Modak.^[22] This judgment gave rise to two doctrines i.e. modicum of creativity and the skill and judgment test. This remains the accepted and current position of law in India as of now. However, prior to this, the Indian Courts used to follow the Sweat of the Brow approach.

«Sweat of the brow» doctrine[edit]

This theory bases the grant of copyright protection on the effort and labour that an author puts into their work as opposed to the creativity involved. Locke’s theory of labour as property has often been extended to give jurisprudential basis to this theory of copyright law. In the case of V. Govindan v E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone,^[23] it was held that compilations of information would meet the threshold of ‘originality’ under the Indian Copyright Act since it involves some level of ‘skill, labour and brain’.^[24] A similar line of reasoning was adopted in the case of Burlington Home Shipping Pvt Ltd v Rajnish Chibber^[25] where a database was held to be original enough to be protected by copyright under Indian law. However, like in other jurisdictions, this theory was discarded by the Indian Courts also and the focus was shifted to the creativity involved in any work.

EBC Modak case (modicum of creativity and skill and judgment test)[edit]

The EBC Modak case is the Indian counterpart of the Feist Publications case in terms of the test it laid down. It concerned the copyrightability of Supreme Court judgments that were copy-edited and published by Eastern Book Company. These judgments were published along with ‘headnotes’ that were written by the Company itself. While explicitly discarding the Sweat of the Brow theory, the Court held that simply copy editing would not meet the threshold of originality under copyright law since it would only demonstrate an «amount of skill, labour and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited judgments and the original or innovative thoughts for the creativity would be completely excluded.«.^[26] Thus, it introduced the requirement of ‘creativity’ under originality. With respect to the level of creativity involved, the court adopted the ‘minimal degree of creativity’ approach. Following this standard, the headnotes that did not copy from the judgment verbatim were held to be copyrightable.

Finally, the Court also gave way to the ‘Skill and Judgment Test’ which is more or less a compromise between the sweat of the brow theory and the modicum of creativity test. While relying on the CCH Canadian Case,^[27] the Court essentially held that a work would meet the originality standard as long as there is labour or effort involved but not only labour.^[26] It must involve some level of skill and judgment as well. However, this approach mirrors the Sweat of the Brow theory more closely and is therefore a difficult theory to defend. Further, the Court held the division of a judgment into paragraphs and numbering them was enough to meet this standard of ‘Skill and Judgment’. Whether this is the correct interpretation of the test as given in the CCH Canadian Case^[28] remains debatable.

Originality in science[edit]

Scientific literature considered as primary must contain original research, and even review articles contain original analysis or interpretation.^[29]

Originality of ideas and creative works[edit]

An original idea is one not thought up by another person beforehand. Sometimes, two or more people can come up with the same idea independently. Originality is usually associated with characteristics such as being imaginative and creative.

The evaluation of originality depends not only on the creative work itself, but also on the temporal context, the zeitgeist. In a study of the musical originality of 15,618 classical music themes, the importance of objective characteristics and the zeitgeist for popularity was examined. Both the musical originality of a theme relative to its contemporary works (the zeitgeist), as well as its «absolute» originality influenced in similar magnitude the popularity of a theme.^[30] Similarly, objective features and temporal context both influenced the evaluation of linguistic originality.^[31]

Original recording[edit]

An original painting, photographic negative, analog audio, or video recording, will contain qualities that can be difficult, or under current technology may be impossible to copy in its full integrity. That can also apply for any other artifact.

That is why it is often necessary to preserve the original, in order to preserve its original integrity. The copy is made to preserve the original recording by saving the original from degenerating as it is being played, rather than to replace the original.

See also[edit]

• Copyright protection of photographs in Switzerland — describes the criteria for the originality of photographs in Swiss law
• Creativity
• Derivative work
• Feist v. Rural and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (USA)
• In fiction narratology, an original is the first-published installment of a series of works, thus having sequels, prequels, etc.
• Ship of Theseus
• Synonyms: archetype, prototype (the first draft of an original work), model, template, and pastiche (an imitation of an archetype or prototype in order to pay homage to the original creator)
• Sweat of the brow

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

• Gregory, Elizabeth (1997) Quotation and Modern American Poetry: Imaginary Gardens with Real Toads
• Macfarlane, Robert (2007) `Romantic’ Originality, in Original copy: plagiarism and originality in nineteenth-century literature, March 2007, pp. 18–50(33)
• Smith, Logan Pearsall (1924) Four words: romantic, originality, creative, genius, Oxford, Clarendon Press
• Waterhouse, Francis A. (1926) Romantic ‘Originality’ in The Sewanee Review, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 1926), pp. 40–49

External links[edit]

• «Originality», BBC Radio 4 discussion with John Deathridge, Jonathan Rée and Catherine Belsey (In Our Time, Mar. 20, 2003)

Варианты (v1)

Варианты (v2)

Предложения со словом «originality»

The etymology of a word refers to its origin and historical development: that is, its earliest known use, its transmission from one language to another, and its changes in form and meaning. Etymology is also the term for the branch of linguistics that studies word histories.

What’s the Difference Between a Definition and an Etymology?

A definition tells us what a word means and how it’s used in our own time. An etymology tells us where a word came from (often, but not always, from another language) and what it used to mean.

For example, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the definition of the word disaster is «an occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe» or «a grave misfortune.» But the etymology of the word disaster takes us back to a time when people commonly blamed great misfortunes on the influence of the stars.

Disaster first appeared in English in the late 16th century, just in time for Shakespeare to use the word in the play King Lear. It arrived by way of the Old Italian word disastro, which meant «unfavorable to one’s stars.»

This older, astrological sense of disaster becomes easier to understand when we study its Latin root word, astrum, which also appears in our modern «star» word astronomy. With the negative Latin prefix dis- («apart») added to astrum («star»), the word (in Latin, Old Italian, and Middle French) conveyed the idea that a catastrophe could be traced to the «evil influence of a star or planet» (a definition that the dictionary tells us is now «obsolete»).

Is the Etymology of a Word Its True Definition?

Not at all, though people sometimes try to make this argument. The word etymology is derived from the Greek word etymon, which means «the true sense of a word.» But in fact the original meaning of a word is often different from its contemporary definition.

The meanings of many words have changed over time, and older senses of a word may grow uncommon or disappear entirely from everyday use. Disaster, for instance, no longer means the «evil influence of a star or planet,» just as consider no longer means «to observe the stars.»

Let’s look at another example. Our English word salary is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as «fixed compensation for services, paid to a person on a regular basis.» Its etymology can be traced back 2,000 years to sal, the Latin word for salt. So what’s the connection between salt and salary?

The Roman historian Pliny the Elder tells us that «in Rome, a soldier was paid in salt,» which back then was widely used as a food preservative. Eventually, this salarium came to signify a stipend paid in any form, usually money. Even today the expression «worth your salt» indicates that you’re working hard and earning your salary. However, this doesn’t mean that salt is the true definition of salary.

Where Do Words Come From?

New words have entered (and continue to enter) the English language in many different ways. Here are some of the most common methods.

• Borrowing
  The majority of the words used in modern English have been borrowed from other languages. Although most of our vocabulary comes from Latin and Greek (often by way of other European languages), English has borrowed words from more than 300 different languages around the world. Here are just a few examples:
  futon (from the Japanese word for «bedclothes, bedding»)
• hamster (Middle High German hamastra)
• kangaroo (Aboriginal language of Guugu Yimidhirr, gangurru , referring to a species of kangaroo)
• kink (Dutch, «twist in a rope»)
• moccasin (Native American Indian, Virginia Algonquian, akin to Powhatan mäkäsn and Ojibwa makisin)
• molasses (Portuguese melaços, from Late Latin mellceum, from Latin mel, «honey»)
• muscle (Latin musculus, «mouse»)
• slogan (alteration of Scots slogorne, «battle cry»)
• smorgasbord (Swedish, literally «bread and butter table»)
• whiskey (Old Irish uisce, «water,» and bethad, «of life»)
• Clipping or Shortening
  Some new words are simply shortened forms of existing words, for instance indie from independent; exam from examination; flu from influenza, and fax from facsimile.
• Compounding
  A new word may also be created by combining two or more existing words: fire engine, for example, and babysitter.
• Blends
  A blend, also called a portmanteau word, is a word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two or more other words. Examples include moped, from mo(tor) + ped(al), and brunch, from br(eakfast) + (l)unch.
• Conversion or Functional Shift
  New words are often formed by changing an existing word from one part of speech to another. For example, innovations in technology have encouraged the transformation of the nouns network, Google, and microwave into verbs.
• Transfer of Proper Nouns
  Sometimes the names of people, places, and things become generalized vocabulary words. For instance, the noun maverick was derived from the name of an American cattleman, Samuel Augustus Maverick. The saxophone was named after Sax, the surname of a 19th-century Belgian family that made musical instruments.
• Neologisms or Creative Coinages
  Now and then, new products or processes inspire the creation of entirely new words. Such neologisms are usually short lived, never even making it into a dictionary. Nevertheless, some have endured, for example quark (coined by novelist James Joyce), galumph (Lewis Carroll), aspirin (originally a trademark), grok (Robert A. Heinlein).
• Imitation of Sounds
  Words are also created by onomatopoeia, naming things by imitating the sounds that are associated with them: boo, bow-wow, tinkle, click.

Why Should We Care About Word Histories?

If a word’s etymology is not the same as its definition, why should we care at all about word histories? Well, for one thing, understanding how words have developed can teach us a great deal about our cultural history. In addition, studying the histories of familiar words can help us deduce the meanings of unfamiliar words, thereby enriching our vocabularies. Finally, word stories are often both entertaining and thought provoking. In short, as any youngster can tell you, words are fun.