Copyright Law Overview

Originality in Copyright Law

• Originality in copyright signifies independent creation and not mere copying.
• The "sweat of the brow" doctrine argued that effort and labor invested in a work, regardless of originality, deserved copyright protection.
• Case: Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. exemplifies the "sweat of the brow" doctrine where copyright was granted for advertising posters despite their lack of originality.
• Case law plays a crucial role in defining originality for copyright, establishing principles for determining if a work qualifies for protection.
• Requirement NOT needed for copyright protection: Merely being useful is not sufficient.
• Baker v. Selden case emphasizes that courts consider whether a work is an expression (copyrightable) or a method (not copyrightable).
• A work needs to meet a minimal level of originality to be eligible for copyright protection.
• Legal Provision: Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act protects original works of authorship.
• Key Issue in the First Case: The defendant's actions were deemed to have copied the plaintiff's work.
• Conclusion Regarding Infringement: The Court found that the defendant's work was substantially similar to the plaintiff's, leading to infringement.
• Common Aspect in Nichols v. Universal: Both stories shared a similar theme of marriage and certain plot points.
• Court Decision on Theme of Marriage: The court held that the theme of marriage itself isn't copyrightable and there were substantial differences in plot development between the stories.
• Nature of Works in First Case: The first case involved copyright infringement claims related to two plays.
• Originality of Plaintiff's Play in Nichols v.Universal: The court determined that the plaintiff's play, despite some similarities, was original in terms of plot and characters.
• Relationship Leading to Legal Case: Both stories involved a wealthy widow's daughter marrying a less wealthy man.
• Reason for Reversal: The court reversed the judgment in the initial case due to the lack of substantial similarity between the plots.
• Main Issue in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone: The case questioned whether a telephone directory, considered factual information, deserves copyright protection.
• Requirements for Copyright: For copyright protection, a work must demonstrate originality and creative expression.
• Legal Status of Facts: Facts themselves are not copyrightable. However, the expression or arrangement of those facts can be.
• Limitation on Copyright for Compilations: Copyright protection for compilations of facts is limited; it doesn't extend to the facts themselves.
• CCH Canadian Ltd. Case: This case dealt with the copyrightability of the Law Society's compilation of legal decisions.
• Originality in Copyright Context: It means an independent creation and not copying from existing works.
• Directory Format in Copyright Rulings: Directory formats are not inherently copyrightable; only the particular creative selection and arrangement of information can be protected.
• Statement About Copyright on Compilations: Copyright protection for compilations is limited to the original expression in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of facts.
• Legal Issue in Eastern Book Company v. DB Modak: The case concerned copyright infringement related to the publication of law reports.
• Software Names: Spectrum Business Support Ltd. developed ''Legal** Manager, while Regent Datatech Pvt. Ltd. produced 'Law Manager.'
• Supreme Court Order: The Court ordered the respondents to cease publication and distribution of the allegedly infringing CD-ROMs.
• Division Bench Conclusion on Corrections: The Division Bench concluded that mere corrections to judgments did not constitute original works deserving of copyright protection.
• Appellants' Responsibility: Appellants had to demonstrate that their copy-edited versions had enough independent effort and creativity to qualify for copyright.
• Court Emphasis on Author's Effort: The court highlighted the role of the author's significant intellectual effort in creating original works.
• Misconception About Derivative Works: It was clarified that derivative works deserve copyright protection only if they offer sufficient originality beyond the source work.
• Footnotes and Headnotes Role: These elements were considered essential parts of the copyrighted work, adding to its originality.
• Rome Convention Administrator: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) manages the Rome Convention.
• Minimum Copyright Protection Duration: The Rome Convention mandates at least 50 years of protection for works.
• Closed List Approach: The United States follows a closed list approach to copyright, meaning only specified types of works are eligible for protection.
• Uncopyrightable Works: Choreographic works, in the case of 'Krishika Lulla & Ors. v. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta,' are not copyrightable.
• Open List Approach: In an open list approach, any original work, regardless of category, can be protected.
• Appointed Individuals for Examination Papers: The University of London Press appointed external examiners to create examination papers, underscoring the potential for copyright infringement.
• Copyright Subject Matter Example: A musical composition falls under the category of subject matter covered by copyright.
• Copyright Tangible Products: Copyright doesn't cover tangible products associated with works, such as the physical book or the software disk.

This quiz covers the fundamentals of copyright protection, including the subject matter it encompasses and its durations in various jurisdictions. It explores the nuances of literary works and the distinction between open and closed list approaches in copyright law. Test your knowledge on copyright principles and landmark cases.