The paintings these mezzotints are based on are in

  • New England Law
  • PROP 101
  • ProfJellyfishMaster1548
  • 41
  • 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 29 - 32 out of 41 pages.

The paintings these mezzotints are based on are in the public domain, defendant basically says yeah we copied your copy… but you don’t deserve copyright protection either because these paintings are in the public domain. Court says this is copyrightable. The minor variations and the creativity of the process added to the copying of the paintings some variations that are beyond merely trivial. What do you know? Franks opinion from Bell : focus on the changes the author is bringing. o Are those changes more than trivial? Are they more than merely functional, like chronological or alphabetical orders?
Penguin There’s not a lot of evidence on how or where Bell got his poems, but it looks like he weeded out the works that he didn’t feel were actual poems and used everything else. This is a little wishy-washy but for the most part is not creative at all. o Author made edits (punctuation, capitalization, etc.) These also don’t cut it, they’re just correcting/formatting. West: West publishes all legal opinions o In this case they’re similar to the Dorothy Parker poems in that they’re just all printed, not selected through some creative process. Issue at hand is the copyrightability of West’s cases and star pagination. o Basically star pagination allows cases to be cited in the West style even if not using the West Reporter. The court basically says that page numbers, like puntuation, are purely functional. Derivative Works Remember the 3 conceptual ways to think of work: o Stand alone works (“something else in Versteeg Speak) o Compilations o Derivative work: a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Hoehling Start with facts o Next, a historian compiles the facts (his interpretation works its way in of course). o Next someone (Moore) creates a more literary version more caught up in the human drama but based off facts from the historical account. o Finally someone distills it down into a Hollywood film. Remember that facts aren’t copyrightable. The facts in 2 different biographies of JFK are going to be substantially the same, that’s not a copyright problem. The way the fact the author weaved the facts together and arranged them is likely to be protectable. This is the easy part. o What do you do with the interpretation? In this case, we’re not sure exactly how the Hindenburg ignited. The idea that some dude (Stehl) sabotaged it is just that, an idea. Ideas aren’t copyrightable. The historian saying “this is my version of the facts as I see them” also isn’t copyrightable because he’s saying they’re facts, and facts aren’t copyrightable. Batlin & Sons v. Snyder

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture