[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CSRG archives

From: RJack
Subject: Re: CSRG archives
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:10:37 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/23/2010 2:40 PM, RJack wrote:
Originality is a *requirement* before copyright is granted.

They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But I guess stupidity explains a lot.

It certainly explains your predicament.

"Originality is a Requirement

Originality is a constitutional requirement. (Feist Publications, Inc.,
v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991))

The only part of a work that is protected by copyright is that which is
original to the author.

In two late 19th century decisions, the Supreme Court defined the terms
“authors” and “writings.” In doing so, the Court made it absolutely
clear that both terms presumed a degree of originality. In one case, the
Court determined that for a work to be classified “under the head of
writings of authors, originality is required” and that “the writings
which are to be protected are the fruits of intellectual labor, embodied
in the form of books, prints, engravings, and the like.”(Feist) In
another case, the Court defined the term “author,” as far as
constitutional requirements, to mean “he to whom anything owes its
origin; originator; maker.”(Feist) The court further described copyright
as being limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,”
(Feist) and stressed that an author accusing another of infringement is
required to prove "the existence of those facts of originality, of
intellectual production, of thought, and conception.(Feist)."

You can always take a quotation out of context and make a complete fool
of yourself Hyman. Keep up the good work!

SimplexGrinnell v. Integerated Systems & Power United Staes District Court Southern District of New York <> Although the parties presented this issue in terms of SimplexGrinnell's copyright in the various revisions of the Programmer, each new version constitutes a separate derivative work

Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch v. Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit <> We have explained that "`[o]riginality' in [the copyright] context `means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.'"

You will never be able to separate ownership claims to establish what is derivative and what is joint in BusyBox.

Why not read Feist (supra). 'Nuff said.

RJack :)

There is nothing joint in BusyBox because there is no stated intent by all of its authors to create a joint work.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]