Much that is original is not copyrightable. Ideas, methods of
operation, facts, etc. I think that copyright has been stretched to
give protection to non-expressive material. Machine code pure method of
operation, a series of instructions to a machine. I think most of us
agree as a matter of public policy that there shoud be legal protections
available to the creators of computer programs. I just think that we
have stretched copyright out of shape to cover these kinds of material.
There is a move to create a new form of IP for databases, because
copyright does not give the creators the protection that they desire.
In 20/20 hindsight, I believe that we should have done that for computer
programs. Just my opinion.
-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
[mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of LKim[_at_]cohenlaw.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:05 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: CR in X-ray works- Expressive?
I would beg to differ that the key question is examining the intent of the individual creating the work. If the work, as produced, has at least some originality, it is copyrightable -- never mind the subject intent of the creator. Accordingly, there are more things that can fuel originality than just the need to be expressive or have an expressive bent. This is the reason why many laypeople do not understand that technical works can be copyrightable (at times), just as works of fiction and works of fine art may be copyrightable.
Now, rather than looking at the creator's subjective intent, I believe that a court, when examining whether originality is indeed present, would look towards whether there is any originality in the steps in producing the work (as well as whether there is any originality present in the end product). See, for example, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony.
When a radiology technician takes an x-ray, CT, MRI, US of an individual, I highly doubt that there is any originality involved in the process (let alone the end result). It is a very "mechanical" process and it involves no creativity in terms of judgment (as far as how one goes about doing the process that yields the medical image as an end result).
Lee Kim, Esq.
Patent Agent
Cohen & Grigsby, P.C.
11 Stanwix Street, 15th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Direct dial: 412-297-4969
FAX: 412-209-1965
E-mail: lkim[_at_]cohenlaw.com
"Agenbroad, James \(Civ,ARL/CISD\)" <jagenbro[_at_]arl.army.mil>
Sent by: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property"
<CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
03/23/2005 12:10 PMPlease respond to"CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright &
Intellectual Property"
To "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property"
<CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
cc
bcc
Subject [CNI-(C)] Re: CR in X-ray works- Expressive?
The original question regarded Indian law, and I have to say, I have NO idea of the caselaw there. However, I would hope that in the U.S. there would be NO copyright in medical x-rays. They simply aren't expressive. You shouldn't get too hung up on the technology used to creat the image, a pencil could be used to fill out your 1040 (not copyrightable) or to sketch your mother(copyrightable). The core question is the intent of the person doing it, and I don't believe that expressive or aestetic considerations are normally part of the technicians intent. In a general way, I think one of the areas where copyright law is showing strain is where people have tried to stretch it to cover non(or minimally) expressive works. Feist put the smackdown on copyrighting mere alphabetized lists where no selection of items was done. But I also think that copyright is poorly suited to protecting functional items like state laws, standards, recepies, or even software. In those cases, it seems to me that the idea/expression line would indicate very little protectable content.
#############################################################This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
<https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
us (collect) immediately at 412-297-4900 and ask to speak to the message sender. Also, please email the message back to the sender at Cohen & Grigsby by replying to it and then deleting it. We appreciate your assistance in correcting this error.
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
<https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
Received on Fri Mar 25 2005 - 18:40:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:54 GMT