Schrock v. Learning Curve
586 F.3d 513 (2009)
FACTS
-P alleges that producer of Thomas the Tank Engine toys had exceeded its license to reproduce and distribute P’s photographs of the toys.
-D states that: P had no copyright to infringe because the photographs lacked sufficient originality.
ISSUE
-Were the photographs of Thomas the Tank Engine copyrightable?
HOLDING
-yes, the court stated that the photographs did not fall into the category of photographs that can be classified as ‘slavish copies’ that lacked any independent created expression.
RULES
-To be copyrightable, a derivative work must contain some substantial, not merely trivial originality.
-The test of originality is concededly one with a low threshold in all that is needed is that the author contributed something more than a merely trivial variation, something recognizably his own.
586 F.3d 513 (2009)
FACTS
-P alleges that producer of Thomas the Tank Engine toys had exceeded its license to reproduce and distribute P’s photographs of the toys.
-D states that: P had no copyright to infringe because the photographs lacked sufficient originality.
ISSUE
-Were the photographs of Thomas the Tank Engine copyrightable?
HOLDING
-yes, the court stated that the photographs did not fall into the category of photographs that can be classified as ‘slavish copies’ that lacked any independent created expression.
RULES
-To be copyrightable, a derivative work must contain some substantial, not merely trivial originality.
-The test of originality is concededly one with a low threshold in all that is needed is that the author contributed something more than a merely trivial variation, something recognizably his own.
-P’s
artistic and technical choices combine
to create a two-dimensional image that is subtly but nonetheless
sufficiently his own.
ANALYSIS
Example of artists A and B who both painted their variations of the Mona Lisa, a painting in the public domain. If the difference between A’ s and B’s will also be slight, so that if B had access to A’s reproductions the trier of fact will be hard-pressed to decide whether B was copying A or copying the Mona Lisa itself.
-The only originality required for a new work to be copyrightable is enough expressive variation from public-domain or other existing works to enable the new work to be readily distinguished from its predecessors. This standard does not require a high degree of incremental originality.
[General principles:] (1) The originality requirement for derivative works is not more demanding than the originality requirement for other works; and (2) the key inquiry is whether there is sufficient nontrivial variation in the derivative work to make it distinguishable from the underlying work in some meaningful way.
-Copyright in a derivative work is thin, extending only to the incremental original expression contributed by the author of the derivative work.
Link to case: 586 F.3d 513 (2009)
Example of artists A and B who both painted their variations of the Mona Lisa, a painting in the public domain. If the difference between A’ s and B’s will also be slight, so that if B had access to A’s reproductions the trier of fact will be hard-pressed to decide whether B was copying A or copying the Mona Lisa itself.
-The only originality required for a new work to be copyrightable is enough expressive variation from public-domain or other existing works to enable the new work to be readily distinguished from its predecessors. This standard does not require a high degree of incremental originality.
[General principles:] (1) The originality requirement for derivative works is not more demanding than the originality requirement for other works; and (2) the key inquiry is whether there is sufficient nontrivial variation in the derivative work to make it distinguishable from the underlying work in some meaningful way.
-Copyright in a derivative work is thin, extending only to the incremental original expression contributed by the author of the derivative work.
Link to case: 586 F.3d 513 (2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment