Re: Amicus Support in Satava v. Lowry

At 10:36 AM 9/12/2003, Robert Panzer wrote:
>In referring to the court's opinion, Vance Koven says that "First of all, it
>equates originality with creativity, which is not the correct standard." I
>am not sure why it is not the correct standard. Both words can be defined
>in many different ways and I have not seen anything in the statute or case
>law that defines the difference

Check out Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company, 188 US 239, 251 (Holmes, J.). Copyright law has long avoided rules that require it to decide whether work is "creative" or not, insisting principally on originality, in the objective sense that it was original to the claimed author. Feist delves, with evident distaste, into the murky waters of creativity to ascertain what level of independent thought is required for something to be considered original. If "creative" and "original" are in any sense synonymous, it is at a sort of subatomic, quantum level of analysis.

Vance R. Koven, Senior Attorney
Comverse, Inc.
100 Quannapowitt Parkway
Wakefield, MA 01880 USA
+1 781-224-8523 (vox humana)
+1 781-224-8144 (fax mechanica) Received on Fri Sep 12 2003 - 23:00:12 GMT