Re: Was Judge Hand good for (c)-law?

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Tim Phillips <phillips[_at_]mail.nhn.ou.edu> wrote:
>
> My whole point is that in the case of EXACT duplication of a work
> in the public domain, the copyright should be held to be invalid,
> JUST AS A PATENT WOULD BE. This is one situation where copyright
> law should be more like patent law.

You need to back that up with more than simple assertions of opinion, I think. I think you have a fundamental confusion about the difference between originality and novelty, and are trying to import novelty concepts into originality.

> Besides, would any judge sincerely believe that someone had
> re-invented an exact duplicate of Keats' poem without any prior
> awareness of Keats'?

As an evidentiary matter, that's pretty clear: in the real world, the notion that someone would independently create the poem is not believable, and would not be believed. This would go to rebut the claim of originality, without any need to import any idea of novelty.

> The standard of originality should be illustrated with credible
> examples.

Not where the point of the example is to contrast originality with novelty.  

--
Terry Carroll       |  "I know the Great Lakes.  I've traveled the 
Santa Clara, CA     |  Great Lakes.  And Lake Champlain is not one of
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     |  the Great Lakes." - U.S. Senator John Glenn reacts
Modell delendus est |  to 33 U.S.C. 1122 as amended by Pub.L. 105-160