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

Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I recommend a reading of the short story entitled "Pierre Menard, author of Don Quixote" by Jorge Luis Borges, on this topic of originality and re-creation.

Angela Giral, Director
Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Columbia University
<giral[_at_]columbia.edu> Received on Tue Mar 31 1998 - 01:20:15 GMT