![]() 145, 150-151: "Take, for example, two faithful compilations or translations. See Judge Learned Hand in Fred Fisher, Inc. ![]() Hartford Empire Co., 7 Cir., 173 F.2d 49, 53 Interstate Hotel Co. Tylor, 2 Cir., 178 F.2d 128 Turner Glass Corp. ![]() Accordingly, we were not ignoring the Constitution when we stated that a "copy of something in the public domain" will support a copyright if it is a "distinguishable variation" or when we rejected the contention that "like a patent, a copyrighted work must be not only original, but new", adding, "That is not * * * the law as is obvious in the case of maps or compendia, where later works will necessarily be anticipated." All that is needed to satisfy both the Constitution and the statute is that the "author" contributed something more than a "merely trivial" variation, something recognizably "his own." Originality in this context "means little more than a prohibition of actual copying." No matter how poor artistically the "author's" addition, it is enough if it be his own. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |