Re: copyright of pleadings

> In theory, creativity has nothing to do with it so long as the writing
> (etc.) is "original" to the author.

Then I guess the Supreme Court in Feist was wrong in looking for some spark of creativity and finding none.

I think this creativity v. originality problem is not metaphysical at all - it is purely a matter of semantics - with both words being used to show more than just originator - original has connotations of, well, original, novel, creative. It does not mean merely the one who makes the thing without copying.

But as the court has said, even in Feist, the requisite level of originality is extremely low - but more than mere maker.

I've seen this original/creativity argument on this list from several people now. Anyone have any authority contrary to Feist or the logo cases (some of which are copyrightable as works of art, some of which are not because they lack, well, creativity).

Cheers,
Steve Jamar
<sjamar[_at_]aol.com> Received on Fri Apr 26 1996 - 00:59:22 GMT