Re: Re: Amicus Brief in Satava v. Lowry

• Original Message ----- From: "Vance R. Koven" <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property" <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:35 PM Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Amicus Brief in Satava v. Lowry

> At 12:15 PM 10/1/2003, Roy Murphy wrote:
> >"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.
>
> It's not absurd when you consider that Satava was prohibited from
> demonstrating that Lowry actually did mechanically (that is, physically--a
> photocopier is not necessary, you know) copy his sculpture.

This may be true, but by any reasonable review of the photos, Lowry clearly did NOT exactly copy Satava's work. That is not to say, however, that Lowry should not be given his chance to so argue before the jury. My only problem with the Ninth circuit is that the decision should have reversed the preliminary injunction, but allowed the case to go to trial, where Lowry should lose.

-Bodi Received on Thu Oct 02 2003 - 19:29:58 GMT