DOCSLIB.ORG

Considering the Quantum of Originality Needed to Attain Copyright Protection in a Derivative Work Steven S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Considering the Quantum of Originality Needed to Attain Copyright Protection in a Derivative Work Steven S Santa Clara Law Review Volume 40 | Number 2 Article 1 1-1-2000 Deriving Orginality in Derivative Works: Considering the Quantum of Originality Needed to Attain Copyright Protection in a Derivative Work Steven S. Boyd Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven S. Boyd, Deriving Orginality in Derivative Works: Considering the Quantum of Originality Needed to Attain Copyright Protection in a Derivative Work, 40 Santa Clara L. Rev. 325 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol40/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES DERIVING ORIGINALITY IN DERIVATIVE WORKS: CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF ORIGINALITY NEEDED TO ATTAIN COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN A DERIVATIVE WORK Steven S. Boyd* "[T]here is no new thing under the sun."' I. INTRODUCTION Innovations in science and technology constantly expand the concept of creative expression, yielding media never be- fore contemplated.2 These novel and diverse forms of expres- sion continue to challenge the boundaries of the existing ru- bric of copyright laws by forcing jurists and scholars to reconsider fundamental concepts of intellectual property pro- tection, such as originality in copyright law, in the context of cutting edge media.3 At times, the legal community must * Attorney of Law, Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP, Houston, Texas. LL.M., University of Houston Law Center; J.D., South Texas College of Law; B.S., Uni- versity of Texas, Austin. 1. Ecclesiastes 1:9. 2. See H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 52 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5664 [hereinafter H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476]. 3. See J. Lahore, Reprography Reproduction, in INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: THE CHALLENGE TO COPYRIGHT (J. Lahore ed., 1984) ("In no branch of the law other than copyright has the incidence of new technologies revealed so many gaps and deficiencies for which the remedy can only be regu- lation and supervision [by the legislature].") (quoting Comment on the Review of Audiovisual Copyright Law in Australia, 56 AUSTL. L.J. 621, 622 (1982)); David Ladd, Securing the Future of Copyright: A Humanist Endeavor, 9 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 413, 414 (1985); Michael Wurzer, Note, Infringement of the Exclu- sive Right to PrepareDerivative Works: Reducing Uncertainty, 73 MINN. L. REV. 1521, 1524 n.16 (1989) (offering that technological innovation is a problem that will always affect copyright law) (citing Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, 414 325 326 SANTA CLARA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40 modify existing boundaries to accommodate technology, dem- onstrating that copyright law is not written in stone but, to the contrary, is a morphing set of rules designed to adapt to modern applications. When viewing copyright law at its most fundamental level, two concepts form the threshold for receiving copyright protection. First, a work must be an "original work of author- ship."4 Second, the work must be "fixed in any tangible me- dium of expression, now known or later developed, from which it can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communi- cated," with or without "the aid of a machine or device."5 From this basis, the two touchstones of copyright protection- "originality" and "fixation"-continue to develop distinct meanings peculiar to the law of copyright.' Focusing on the prerequisite of originality, courts repeatedly hold that a work is original if the author independently created the work and the work "possesses at least some minimal degree of creativ- U.S. 417, 430 (1983)). 4. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (1994); Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 359 (1991); Entertainment Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Crea- tive Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1021 (1998). 5. 17 U.S.C. § 102 (1994). (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in origi- nal works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, re- produced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following catego- ries: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of author- ship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of opera- tion, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Id. 6. See NEIL BOORSTYN, BOORSTYN ON COPYRIGHT 2-2 (Supp. 1995 & 1996). But see Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 908 (3rd Cir. 1975) ("It is true that originality is not a prerequisite of copyright, and even a modicum of creativity may suffice for a work to be protected.") (emphasis added). 2000] DERIVING ORIGINALITY ity."7 Even at this most fundamental level of copyright law, courts continually struggle to resolve the friction between traditional concepts of copyright protection and the increas- ingly innovative applications of those concepts. This article encapsulates the subtleties that have devel- oped throughout the courts' progress in defining the essential concept in copyright law known as originality-specifically the originality required in derivative works.' Initially, this article introduces the basic concept of originality, describing the constitutional and statutory framework that grants courts the authority to mold its meaning and application.! After fil- tering out the integrated ideas of novelty and creativity from the distinct requirement of originality,1" the focus of this arti- cle shifts to the quantum of originality necessary to attain copyright protection." Although proof of a quantum of origi- nality serves as a threshold requirement for any work seeking copyright protection," this discussion ultimately focuses on the vacillating quantum of originality necessary to secure copyright protection in the emerging arena of derivative works. 3 Finally, the discussion proffers a proposal for simpli- 7. See, e.g., Feist Publications,499 U.S. at 345; Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1373 (10th Cir. 1997). 8. See H.R. REP. No. 94-1476, supra note 2, at 52 (stating that court deci- sions should guide the Copyright Office on what constitutes an original work of authorship); see also Feist Publications, 499 U.S. at 357; Peter Jaszi, Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of "Authorship," 1991 DUKE L.J. 455, 459-60 n.ll (1991). 9. See infra Parts L.A and I.B.1-2 (discussing the fundamental and statu- tory bases for copyright protection). 10. See infra Part I.B.3-4 (distinguishing originality from the concepts of novelty and creativity). 11. See infra Part II (introducing the basis of copyright law and addressing the rudimentary concerns in copyright law). 12. See Feist Publications, 499 U.S. at 345. 13. See infra Parts III and IV (illustrating the development and nuances in assessing the quantum of originality needed to attain protection in a derivative work, regardless of the public domain status of the underlying work). As stated in 17 U.S.C. § 101: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fic- tionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduc- tion, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of an edito- rial revisions, annotations, elaboration, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work." 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1994). 328 SANTA CLARA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40 fying the copyright application process, requiring the same quantum of originality to attain copyright protection in a de- rivative work, regardless of the status of the work.'4 A. The Sine Qua Non of Copyright "A prime requisite for copyright protection under the Constitution is originality."'5 As Justice O'Connor stated in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., "[t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality." 6 Even a cursory review of concepts inherent to copyright protection establishes origi- nality as the very essence of protection. Throughout copy- right jurisprudence, the originality requirement remains the single pervading prerequisite 7 to copyright protection, regard- less of the form of work.' Originality is itself a fluid concept, not an objective crite- rion. Therefore it is constantly being refined by the courts. As a starting point for analyzing originality, it can be de- scribed as a foundation for protection," requiring that a given work be original to the author. 9 Because originality flows from the efforts of a particular author, it necessarily follows that an original work must not be more than a mere copy." The work must embody some modest amount of individual in- tellectual labor in order to qualify as a "work of authorship" entitled to copyright protection.' Although originality appears to be objective in nature, 14. See infra Part IV. 15. Hearings on S. 597 Before the Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. (1967) (statement of Douglas A. Anello, National Association of Broadcasters). 16. Feist Publications, 499 U.S. at 345; accord Warren Publ'g, Inc. v. Micro- dos Data Corp., 115 F.3d 1509, 1515 (11th Cir.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Digital Fanfic in Negotiation: Livejournal, Archive of Our Own, and the Affordances of Read-Write Platforms
    Digital fanfic in negotiation: LiveJournal, Archive of our Own, and the affordances of read-write platforms. Introduction Fanfiction is the unauthorized rewriting or adaptation of popular media narratives, utilizing corporately owned characters, settings and storylines to tell an individual writer’s own story (self-ref, 2017). It is often abbreviated to fanfic or even fic, and exists in a thoroughly grey legal area between copyright infringement and fair use (Tushnet 1997, McCardle 2011). Though there were a few cases of cease-and-desist letters sent to fan writers in the twentieth century, media corporations now understand it is useless to attempt to prosecute fanfic writers – for one thing, there are simply too many of us,1 and for another it would be terrible publicity. Though modern fanfic can be reliably dated to the 1960s (Jenkins 1992), it is now primarily an online practice, and the fastest growing form of writing in the world (self ref). This paper uses participant observation and online ethnography to explore how fanfiction archives utilize digital affordances. Following Murray, I will argue that a robust understanding of digital read-write platforms needs to account for the social and legal context of digital fiction as well as its technological affordances. Whilst the online platform LiveJournal in some ways channels user creativity towards a more self-evidentially ‘digital’ texts than its successor in the Archive of Our Own (A03), the Archive encourages greater reader interactivity at the level of archive and sorting. I will demonstrate that in some ways, the A03 recoups some of the cultural capital and use value of print.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Anime As a Novel Animation Form, Referencing Selected Works by Hayao Miyazaki, Satoshi Kon and Mamoru Oshii
    The significance of anime as a novel animation form, referencing selected works by Hayao Miyazaki, Satoshi Kon and Mamoru Oshii Ywain Tomos submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Aberystwyth University Department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies, September 2013 DECLARATION This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed………………………………………………………(candidate) Date …………………………………………………. STATEMENT 1 This dissertation is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signed………………………………………………………(candidate) Date …………………………………………………. STATEMENT 2 I hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed………………………………………………………(candidate) Date …………………………………………………. 2 Acknowledgements I would to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my supervisors, Elin Haf Gruffydd Jones and Dr Dafydd Sills-Jones for all their help and support during this research study. Thanks are also due to my colleagues in the Department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies, Aberystwyth University for their friendship during my time at Aberystwyth. I would also like to thank Prof Josephine Berndt and Dr Sheuo Gan, Kyoto Seiko University, Kyoto for their valuable insights during my visit in 2011. In addition, I would like to express my thanks to the Coleg Cenedlaethol for the scholarship and the opportunity to develop research skills in the Welsh language. Finally I would like to thank my wife Tomoko for her support, patience and tolerance over the last four years – diolch o’r galon Tomoko, ありがとう 智子.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodcuts to Wrapping Paper: Concepts of Originality in Contemporary Prints Alison Buinicky Dickinson College
    Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar Student Scholarship & Creative Works By Year Student Scholarship & Creative Works 1-28-2005 Woodcuts to Wrapping Paper: Concepts of Originality in Contemporary Prints Alison Buinicky Dickinson College Sarah Rachel Burger Dickinson College Blair Hetherington Douglas Dickinson College Michelle Erika Garman Dickinson College Danielle Marie Gower Dickinson College See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.dickinson.edu/student_work Part of the Contemporary Art Commons Recommended Citation Hirsh, Sharon, et al. Woodcuts to Wrapping Paper: Concepts of Originality in Contemporary Prints. Carlisle, Pa.: The rT out Gallery, Dickinson College, 2005. This Exhibition Catalog is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship & Creative Works at Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Scholarship & Creative Works By Year by an authorized administrator of Dickinson Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Alison Buinicky, Sarah Rachel Burger, Blair Hetherington Douglas, Michelle Erika Garman, Danielle Marie Gower, Blair Lesley Harris, Laura Delong Heffelfinger, Saman Mohammad Khan, Ryan McNally, Erin Elizabeth Mounts, Nora Marisa Mueller, Alexandra Thayer, Heather Jean Tilton, Sharon L. Hirsh, and Trout Gallery This exhibition catalog is available at Dickinson Scholar: http://scholar.dickinson.edu/student_work/9 WOODCUTS TO Concepts of Originality in Contemporary Wrapping Paper Prints WOODCUTS TO Concepts of Originality in Contemporary Wrapping Paper Prints January 28 – March 5, 2005 Curated by: Alison Buinicky Sarah Burger Blair H. Douglas Michelle E. Garman Danielle M. Gower Blair L. Harris Laura D. Heffelfinger Saman Khan Ryan McNally Erin E. Mounts Nora M.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexis Practice Advisor Intellectual Property & Technology Determining
    Lexis Practice Advisor® is a comprehensive practical guidance resource for attorneys who handle transactional matters, including “how to” information, model forms and on point cases, codes and legal analysis. The Intellectual Property & Technology offering contains access to a unique collection of expertly authored content, continuously updated to help you stay up to speed on leading practice trends. The following is a practical guidance excerpt from the topic Copyright Ownership & Registration. Lexis Practice Advisor Intellectual Property & Technology Determining Copyright Ownership by Jeremy S. Goldman, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC Jeremy S. Goldman is counsel in the Litigation Group of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, where he focuses on intellectual property, entertainment and privacy law for clients in the media, entertainment, advertising and technology spaces. Overview Copyright protection is given to authors of original and expressive works , including literary, musical, dramatic, sculptural, and certain other categories of works, which are fixed in a tangible medium. Although the author of a copyrighted work is generally also the creator of the work, there are exceptions to this, such as works made for hire and works jointly authored by more than one person. A copyright in a derivative work protects only the new and original elements added to preexisting work; the author of the derivative work has no ownership interest in the preexisting work. The ownership of a copyright may be transferred or assigned, in whole or in part. That is, each of the exclusive rights afforded a copyright owner under the Copyright Act may be owned and transferred separately. To the extent there are conflicting transfers, the prior transferee will have priority over any subsequent transferee so long as the transfer is recorded within one month of execution (for transfers made in the United States), or at any time prior to recordation of the transfer to a subsequent transferee.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Legal Protection for Fictional Characters: Balancing Public and Private Interests Amanda Schreyer
    Cybaris® Volume 6 | Issue 1 Article 3 2015 An Overview of Legal Protection for Fictional Characters: Balancing Public and Private Interests Amanda Schreyer Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Schreyer, Amanda (2015) "An Overview of Legal Protection for Fictional Characters: Balancing Public and Private Interests," Cybaris®: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris/vol6/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cybaris® by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Schreyer: An Overview of Legal Protection for Fictional Characters: Balanci Published by Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2015 1 Cybaris®, Vol. 6, Iss. 1 [2015], Art. 3 AN OVERVIEW OF LEGAL PROTECTION FOR FICTIONAL CHARACTERS: BALANCING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS † AMANDA SCHREYER I. Fictional Characters and the Law .............................................. 52! II. Legal Basis for Protecting Characters ...................................... 53! III. Copyright Protection of Characters ........................................ 57! A. Literary Characters Versus Visual Characters ............... 60! B. Component Parts of Characters Can Be Separately Copyrightable ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PARATEXTUALITY and the LOST URTEXT Anthony Enns the Term
    ANTHONY ENNS PARATEXTUALITY AND THE LOST URTEXT Anthony Enns The term “paratext” refers to the elements of a literary work that ac- company the text but are not considered part of the text itself, such as title pages, introductions, annotations, appendices, etc. Gérard Genette famously described the paratext as the “threshold…between the inside and the outside” of a text, and this threshold represents “a privileged place of a pragmatics and a strategy, of an influence on the public, an influence that…is at the service of a better reception for the text and a more pertinent reading of it” (2). In other words, the contextual information and critical commentary provided in the paratext ultimately serves the author’s own interests by ensuring that the text is interpreted correctly: “The way to get a proper reading is…to put the (definitely assumed) reader in possession of information the author considers necessary for this proper reading…[such as information] about the way the author wishes to be read” (209). Genette also noted that paratextual elements have expanded over time in order to satisfy “the educated public’s growing curiosity about the ‘making’ of the text and about the unearthing of versions the author had abandoned” (339). Paratexts were thus increasingly seen as necessary “supplements” or “acces- sories” to a literary work, and a text without a paratext is now viewed as “a power disabled…like an elephant without a mahout” (410). If a text without a paratext is “an elephant without a mahout,” then a “paratext without its text is a mahout without an elephant,” which Gen- ette dismissed as “a silly show” (410).
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Software Derivative Works: the Calm Before the Storm
    COMPUTER SOFTWARE DERIVATIVE WORKS: THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM Natalie Heineman* Cite as 8 J. HIGH TECH. L. 235 (2008) I. Introduction Every generation believes they live in the most exciting times of continued social and technological advancement. Since the advent of computers and the internet, however, the present is a time in which progress seems unrivaled. While the law races to catch up with technology, the area of law requiring the fastest runners may be that of computer software derivative works under current copyright law. An author’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works is particularly challenged in the software environment where innovation often involves references to and incorporation of other preexisting works. Without definitive cases on point or specifically tailored legislation to guide the analysis, however, the scope of this note is simply to help define the issues presented, thereby drawing attention to what looks to be the calm before the impending storm. This note considers the challenge posed by computer software derivative works. The note first discusses the definition of derivative works under the current Copyright Act, and analyzes how the courts have interpreted derivative works in analogous contexts. Because defining a derivative work necessarily considers whether it has infringed the underlying work, the note then discusses how the courts make infringement analyses. The infringement analysis focuses primarily on the abstraction-filtration method as it has developed in computer software cases. Finally, the note considers trends in cases and legislation that suggest an increasingly broad interpretation of derivative rights. This section emphasizes the Open Source movement which will no doubt have a significant impact on the future of computer software derivative works.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Case Study: Anime Music Videos
    2. CASE STUDY: ANIME MUSIC VIDEOS Dana Milstein When on 1 August 1981 at 12:01 a.m. the Buggles’ ‘Video Killed the Radio Star’ aired as MTV’s first music video, its lyrics parodied the very media pre- senting it: ‘We can’t rewind, we’ve gone too far, . put the blame on VTR.’ Influenced by J. G. Ballard’s 1960 short story ‘The Sound Sweep’, Trevor Horn’s song voiced anxiety over the dystopian, artificial world developing as a result of modern technology. Ballard’s story described a world in which natu- rally audible sound, particularly song, is considered to be noise pollution; a sound sweep removes this acoustic noise on a daily basis while radios broad- cast a silent, rescored version of music using a richer, ultrasonic orchestra that subconsciously produces positive feelings in its listeners. Ballard was particu- larly criticising technology’s attempt to manipulate the human voice, by con- tending that the voice as a natural musical instrument can only be generated by ‘non-mechanical means which the neruophonic engineer could never hope, or bother, to duplicate’ (Ballard 2006: 150). Similarly, Horn professed anxiety over a world in which VTRs (video tape recorders) replace real-time radio music with simulacra of those performances. VTRs allowed networks to replay shows, to cater to different time zones, and to rerecord over material. Indeed, the first VTR broadcast occurred on 25 October 1956, when a recording of guest singer Dorothy Collins made the previous night was broadcast ‘live’ on the Jonathan Winters Show. The business of keeping audiences hooked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, promoted the concept of quantity over quality: yes- terday’s information was irrelevant and could be permanently erased after serving its money-making purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright OUTLINE
    COPYRIGHT – PROF. REESE, SPRING 2009 • INTRODUCTION o Characteristics . Public goods, nonexcludability and nonrivalrousness . Intangible gooDs o Concerns . Financial benefit (incentives to create) . Attribution . Accuracy . Control . Privacy o ProbleMs . Creates Monopoly . Less access/higher costs • SUBJECT MATTER o Constitutional . Federal, not patchwork of state protections . Restrictions on Congress • Limited time for exclusive rights • Who can get protection • Purpose (science/useful arts) • Subject Matter: writings of authors . Note: just because Constitution perMits Congress to grant copyright protection, it Does not Mean that Congress HAS to o Subject Matter BroaDly DefineD . Author = originator of work . Writing = physical forM expressing iDeas of the MinD . ProMote Progress includes works for coMMercial purpose . Originality: intellectual proDuction, though, or Mental conception, not a qualitative juDgMent of artistic value o Courts on subject Matter: ORIGINALITY . Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884): Oscar WilDe photo • ∂’s challenge: photos are not “authorship” • HolDing: photographs are writings—represent “original intellectual conceptions of the author” o Early Congress protecteD Maps/charts, recreations of the real worlD o Define writings: “all forms by which the ideas in the mind of the author are given visible expression” o Reject categorical exclusion of photos: originality thresholD Met . Goldstein v. California (1973): doesn’t have to be visible • Writings incluDes physical expression of sounDs, any physical rendering . Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographic (1903): circus aDvertiseMents • ∂’s challenge, drawn from life to advertise • HolDing: low threshold of originality o Shows author’s personality, even in unpretentious pictures o ComMercial purpose does not reMove from “useful arts”—value because of consuMer DeManD for copies o Ends lower court trenD aligning copyright with fine arts o Court does not judge artistic quality o Statutory Subject Matter: §102 .
    [Show full text]
  • The Adventure of the Shrinking Public Domain
    ROSENBLATT_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/12/2015 1:10 PM THE ADVENTURE OF THE SHRINKING PUBLIC DOMAIN ELIZABETH L. ROSENBLATT* Several scholars have explored the boundaries of intellectual property protection for literary characters. Using as a case study the history of intellectual property treatment of Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional character Sherlock Holmes, this Article builds on that scholarship, with special attention to characters that appear in multiple works over time, and to the influences of formal and informal law on the entry of literary characters into the public domain. While copyright protects works of authorship only for a limited time, copyright holders have sought to slow the entry of characters into the public domain, relying on trademark law, risk aversion, uncertainty aversion, legal ambiguity, and other formal and informal mechanisms to control the use of such characters long after copyright protection has arguably expired. This raises questions regarding the true boundaries of the public domain and the effects of non-copyright influences in restricting cultural expression. This Article addresses these questions and suggests an examination and reinterpretation of current copyright and trademark doctrine to protect the public domain from formal and informal encroachment. * Associate Professor and Director, Center for Intellectual Property Law, Whittier Law School. The author is Legal Chair of the Organization for Transformative Works, a lifelong Sherlock Holmes enthusiast, and a pro bono consultant on behalf of Leslie Klinger in litigation discussed in this Article. I would like to thank Leslie Klinger, Jonathan Kirsch, Hayley Hughes, Hon. Andrew Peck, and Albert and Julia Rosenblatt for their contributions to the historical research contained in this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Harmonisation of the Copyright Originality Criterion (Pdf)
    NEWS June 2012 EU harmonisation of the copyright originality criterion As a consequence of a number of copyright rulings from the CJEU, the Swedish threshold of originality requirement is being superseded by an EU originality criterion. In this article, Henrik Bengtsson, IP expert at Delphi in Stockholm, reports on the development and the possible impact on the harmonisation of Swedish copyright law. Less than two years ago, the Swedish Supreme Court rendered its judgment in the Mini Maglite case (NJA 2009 s 159) and ruled that the Mini Maglite flashlight was copyright protected. The Mini Maglite case concerned the pre-requisites under which a work of applied art meets the threshold of originality. The Supreme Court’s view on the threshold of originality concept vis-à-vis “the author’s own intellectual creation” One of the legal issues in the Mini Maglite case was whether the judgment should be based on a Swedish originality requirement or on the EU originality criterion enshrined in the EU copyright directives. The Supreme Court found that the EU harmonisation of copyright law was limited to computer programs, photography and database directives, and was not applicable to industrial designs; “Under two EC directives, computer programs and photographs could be covered by copyright protection, inter alia, on the condition that the work is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation; it is added that no other tests shall be applied as regards the right to protection (Directive 91/250/EEC and Directive 93/98/ EEC). A directive regarding legal protection for databases has been drafted in a similar way in this respect (96/9/EC).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Quality, Merit, Aesthetics and Purpose: an Inquiry Into EU
    This is a preprint of an article published in the RIDA - Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur, no. 236 (April 2013), pp. 100-295, with a full-text translation in French by Margaret PLATT-HOMMEL and in Spanish by Antonio MUÑOZ. Quality, merit, aesthetics and purpose: An inquiry into EU copyright law’s eschewal of other criteria than originality Stef van Gompel & Erlend Lavik* One of the most debated topics in European copyright law today is the harmonization of the concept of originality and the subject-matter of copyright by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). Up until the Infopaq I decision of 2009, in which it ruled that copyright subsists in subject-matter ‘which is original in the sense that it is its author’s own intellectual creation’,1 computer programs, photographs and databases were the only three types of works for which the originality test was explicitly harmonized at the EU level.2 Beyond these cases, it was thought that ‘Member States remain free to determine what level of originality a work must possess for granting it copyright protection’.3 The CJEU nonetheless extended the application of the criterion of the author’s own intellectual creation to other types of works, including newspaper articles (Infopaq I); graphic user interfaces of computer programs (BSA); (unregistered) industrial design (Flos); works exploited within the framework of television broadcasts, such as opening video sequences, anthems, pre-recorded films and graphics (Football Association Premier League); and programming languages and the format of data * Stef van Gompel is post-doc researcher at the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam; Erlend Lavik is post-doc researcher at the Department of Information Science and Media Studies (Infomedia) of the University of Bergen.
    [Show full text]