Copyright Basics - Fixation, Originality, Originality in Derivative works Flashcards

Question

What is the implication for the substantial similarity element of copyright infringement from the Prunte case?

Answer 1

Elements that aren't protectible cannot be the basis for substantial similarity.

Answer 2

Prior cases cited selection of film, camera, lens, and filter as things that make a photo original, BUT the court here says the photographer making these choices is not sufficient to make a photograph original. Court lays our 3 ways a photo can be original that are not mutually exclusive: Rendition, Timing, Creation of the Subject.

Answer 3

Court held the photograph that was copied was protectable because the author changed the lighting, etc. What is protected is the photographers expression, not the actual thing in the image itself. The photo was sufficiently original to warrant protection because plaintiff had originality in rendition and creation of the subject - in the whole of the image (bc creation of the subject), not its individual components.

Answer 4

1. Rendition 2. Timing 3. Creation of the Subject

Answer 5

*The effects produced by the angle, light, shade, exposure, technique, etc. (not lens/filter selection). *Choices that are made in the production of the photograph - technical differences. *How it is depicted *In rendition and timing, it is the nature of the photograph itself, and not the subject matter, that gives rise to the originality. *unless a photograph totally replicates another work, it will have at least somewhat original rendition.

Answer 6

Right place, right time - originality shown in determining when to take the photo. Someone copying the exact same scene at the same time may or may not infringe. Timing is limited by the principle that "copyright in a photograph ordinarily confer no rights over the subject matter. *In rendition and timing, it is the nature of the photograph itself, and not the subject matter, that gives rise to the originality.

Answer 7

To the extent that a photograph is original in the creation of the subject, copyright also extends to that subject. Thus an artist who arranges and the photographs a scene often will have the right to prevent others from duplicating that scene in a photograph or other medium. This is the broad one. This one is more likely to get you a copyright in the whole image. If your images originality is in rendition and timing only, then you will only get originality as to the rendition and timing (copyright will only protect the image and not others from photographing the same object or scene). The photographer creating the scene, making judgements

Answer 8

A work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, 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.

Answer 9

A work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.

Answer 10

A work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term "compilation" includes collective works. Note: Factual compilations are subject to thin copyrights - i.e. infringement will only be found based on literal or nearly literal copying.

Answer 11

103(a) - The subject matter of copyright as specified by 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. ***note - this is the "forfeiture provision" because it says that creators of unauthorized derivative works forfeit copyright in any of their own creative contributions to the work. If the author can isolate some part of her work that doesn't make unauthorized use of the prior work, she can preserve copyright in that part. Otherwise, her work falls into the public domain. 103(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, and doesn't imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

Answer 12

The work was not protected because it did not add nontrivial variations to what already existed in the public domain. The mere reproduction of the work in a different medium was not good enough. There must be substantial variation, not trivial variation. Putting a public domain work in a different medium doesn't make it sufficiently original to warrant copyrightability. Copyright only extends to new expression that was added and the variation must be more than trivial

Answer 13

Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 8. - Congress has the 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"