Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Originality
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Originality under United States copyright law == In the [[copyright law of the United States]], more specifically under [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 17 U.S.C 102], the work that is sought to be protected must satisfy the threshold for [[Threshold of originality|originality]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102|title=Chapter 1 - Circular 92|publisher=U.S. Copyright Office|website=copyright.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-05-10}}</ref> Though most of the countries require certain degree of [[Threshold of originality|originality]] in the work sought to be protected, such requirement does not stem from either the [[Berne Convention]] or the [[TRIPS Agreement]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ta_docs_e/modules2_e.pdf|title=Module 2, Copyright and Related Rights}}</ref> Therefore, there is no uniformity in the standard for [[Threshold of originality|originality]]. In the United States, [[Threshold of originality|originality]] necessitates bare minimum degree of creativity and independent creation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://cyber.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/Module_3:_The_Scope_of_Copyright_Law#The_Concept_of_Originality|title=Module 3: The Scope of Copyright Law - Copyright for Librarians|website=cyber.harvard.edu|language=en|access-date=2018-05-10}}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in the case of '''''[[Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.|Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co]].'''''<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/|title=Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)|work=Justia Law|access-date=2018-05-10|language=en}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/|title=Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)|work=Justia Law|access-date=2018-05-10|language=en}}</ref> 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 [[Threshold of originality|originality]]. After the doctrine was rejected by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in 1991, in the [[Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.|'''''Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp''''']]<ref>36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)</ref> ''case'', the court held that the copies of public domain photographs could not be copyrighted since they lacked [[Threshold of originality|originality]] and while such reproductions may have involved skill and labour, no protection could be granted to them, on account of lack of [[Threshold of originality|originality]]. While the current legal requirements of [[Threshold of originality|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 the Southern District of New York|United States District Court for Southern District of New York]] in '''''[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/cx/2005_Mannion.pdf Mannion v. Coors Brewing Company]'''''<ref>377 F.Supp.2d 444</ref> 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 [[Threshold of originality|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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html|title=Originality Requirements under U.S. and E.U. Copyright Law - Software Freedom Law Center|website=softwarefreedom.org|language=en|access-date=2018-05-10}}</ref> Unlike, [[Novelty (patent)|Patents]], novelty is not required for a work to be considered as original.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102|title=35 U.S. Code Β§ 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2018-05-10}}</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] in [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/81/49/1475281/ '''''Sheldon (1936)''''']<ref>'''81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936)'''</ref> 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 '''''[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/191/99/91570/ Alfred Bell Co. v. Catalda Arts]'''''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/1775|title=Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts|website=h2o.law.harvard.edu|language=en|access-date=2018-05-10}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html|title=Originality Requirements under U.S. and E.U. Copyright Law - Software Freedom Law Center|website=www.softwarefreedom.org|language=en|access-date=2018-05-10}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)