Re: Amicus Brief in Satava v. Lowry

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:15:10 -0400, Roy Murphy wrote:
>
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 4:57pm, Ralph D. Clifford wrote:
>>The amicus brief in support of cert. in Satava v. Lowry has been
>>posted at http://www.snesl.edu/clifford/satava/brief.pdf.
>
>Here are a few notable quotes:
>"Effectively, the Ninth Circuit's standard in dealing with realistic art
>discounts entirely the amount of intellectual labor needed to render a
>natural scene in an expression"
>
>In fact. "sweat of the brow" has never been a consideration in whether
>or not a work demands copyright protection.
>

     The quote doesn't say "labor," it says "intellectual labor." Intellectual labor is what the Supreme Court has indicated is needed for copyright. See Feist, 499 U.S. 346-47.

>"If the Ninth Circuit's test is accurate, then works such as the
>petitioner's -- or even works so clearly creative as John Audubon's
>_Birds of Merica_ -- would no longer be copyrightable."
>
>Whis is an absurd misapplication of the articulated rule. The rule means
>that Audubon does not deserve a copyright on all realistic portrayals of
>birds in habitat while clearly protecting an actual work from mechanical
>reproduction.
>

     I don't agree. The Ninth Circuit would deconstruct Aububon's work, determine that every element was taken from nature, and would disallow any copyright protection. Received on Wed Oct 01 2003 - 22:35:25 GMT