Re: Amicus Brief in Satava v. Lowry

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:35:25 -0400, Robert F. Bodi wrote:
>Further, it is clear that the Ninth circuit did NOT find that the jellyfish
>sculpture was not copyrightable, but instead merely found that the
>protection was pretty much limited to exact copying.
>

     As the brief says, independent creation -- Lowry looking at a jellyfish and making his own statue -- is not copyright infringement. If he took Satava's statue and used it as source material, this was either copying under section 106(1) or preparing a derivative under 106(2). Satava's statue was not a work of non-fiction. It was not a directory of facts. It was an artistic rendering. Received on Thu Oct 02 2003 - 00:41:09 GMT