International Intellectual Property Prof. Manheim Spring 2007 Originality in Copyright Copyright © 2007

Fall, 2006Int'l IP2 Creativity & Originality  US law  Constitution [Art. I, § 8, ¶ 8]Art. I, § 8, ¶ 8  Congress shall have power … To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries  Copyright Act [17 USC § 102(a)]17 USC § 102(a)  Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship

Fall, 2006Int'l IP3 Copyrightable Works  Idea vs. Expression  Recipes, forms, business methods, formulas  Functional (utilitarian) vs. Non-Functional  Utilitarian works excluded  “any procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery..”  Computer programs, games, material products  Patentable?  Not mutually exclusive with copyright  Still, more likely to be functional  Instrumental (perlocutionary) speech

Fall, 2006Int'l IP4 Originality under Berne/TRIPs  Berne [Art. 2]Art. 2  Narrower than US (must be literary, scientific, artistic)  Broader than US law (doesn’t have to be “fixed)  TRIPs [Arts. 9, 10]Arts. 9, 10  Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such. [Art. 9(2)]Art. 9(2)  Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention [Art. 10(1)]Art. 10(1)  Compilations of data… which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellec- tual creations shall be protected as such. [Art. 10(2)]Art. 10(2)

Fall, 2006Int'l IP5 Comparative “Originality”  Novelty?  Not required under US law, Berne, or TRIPs  Creativity?  Req’d by US (Feist) [“intellectual conception”]  Req’d by Berne, TRIPs [“intellectual creation”]  Req’d by Canada (CCH) [“skill & knowledge”]  Effort?  Insufficient [“sweat of brow” rejected]  Paradigm: Copying  Protection for added value (edited compilations)

Fall, 2006Int'l IP6 Feist Publ. v. Rural (SCt 1991)  Facts:  Feist copies Rural’s white pages phone book  Subject Matter  Facts are not copyrightable  Lack of originality, creativity  © clause extends protection to “Authors” and “writings”  Held to require originality – “a modicum of creativity”  Original intellectual conceptions  Contrast “novelty” in patent law  Two identical works can both be original  Only one can be “novel” (new)  “Facts” are not “authored” (discovered not created)

Fall, 2006Int'l IP7 Feist Publ. v. Rural Tel Svc (1991)  Subject Matter  Facts not ©able; Compilations (generally) are  § 103: § 103  (a) The subject matter of copyright … includes compilations and derivative works …  (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work …  Compilation “ authors ” can add originality/creativity through the editing process  Additional content (expression)  Choice of inclusion/exclusion

Fall, 2006Int'l IP8 Feist Publ. v. Rural Tel Svc (1991)  Subject Matter  Compilations  Distinguish value added from underlying facts  Pure factual compilations have thin ©  Selection and arrangement  Labor ( “ sweat of the brow ” doctrine)  From Lockean natural law theory  Rejected; not effort, but creativity that is protected  Directories  Insufficient originality in “ selection ” of data  Alphabetical organization too obvious (non-original)

Fall, 2006Int'l IP9 CCH v. Law Soc. Upper Canada (2004)  Facts: copying of CCH Osgood Hall  Canadian Copyright Act Canadian Copyright Act  § 5 (subject matter): “originality” required § 5  How much creativity is necessary?  Exercise of “skill and judgment”  Some “intellectual” effort (compare mechanical copying)  Accord French law (intellectual contribution + originality)French law  le droit d’auteur le droit d’auteur  “Purpose of [Canadian] copyright law is to balance the public interest in promoting the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator.”

Fall, 2006Int'l IP10 CCH v. Law Soc. Upper Canada (2004)  CCH materials  Headnotes  Case summary  Topical index  Judicial decisions  Textbook  Monograph  Result  Not copies, author’s own words  Editing requires judgment  Essentially, a compilation  Also a (selective) compilation  Extends only to added material (e.g., headnotes) other than facts (e.g., date), or trivial corrections  Holding Le droit d'auteur au Canada protège une vaste gamme d'oeuvres originales, notamment les oeuvres littéraires, dramatiques, musicales ou artistiques, les programmes d'ordinateur, les traductions et les compilations d'oeuvres. Il protège l'expression des idées dans ces oeuvres, et non les idées comme telles. See CCH case

Fall, 2006Int'l IP11 © in Judicial Decisions  Berne  Protection at discretion of member states  US  Not ©able [extends to gov’t works generally]  Theory  What consequence if case law, statutes, legal materials were not in the public domain?  UK  Government publications are ©able