Context: Another limitation of current U.S. Intellectual Property legislation is its focus on individual and joint works; thus, copyright protection can only be obtained in 'original' works of authorship. This definition excludes any works that are the result of community creativity, for example Native American songs and stories; current legislation does not recognize the uniqueness of indigenous cultural "property" and its ever-changing nature. Simply asking native cultures to 'write down' their cultural artifacts on tangible mediums ignores their necessary orality and enforces a Western bias of the written form as more authoritative.

Question: What type of creativity is excluded from the US definition of IP?
Answer: community creativity

Question: What doesn't current US IP law recognize the uniqueness of?
Answer: indigenous cultural "property"

Question: Requiring written records enforces what kind of bias?
Answer: Western

Question: The Western bias is that what form is more authoritative?
Answer: written

Question: Who includes common creativity in their definition of intellectual property?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What does current US IP law recognize the uniqueness of?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What bias is eliminated by asking native cultures to write down their cultural artifacts?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What definition includes any works that are result of community creativity?
Answer: Unanswerable