DISQUS

bdwassom · 1 year ago

Marty;

You say, "if there was creativity and originality in achieving the fidelity, then to the extent those creative and original efforts are expressed, that expression should be copyrightable." The court, quoting Prof. Patry, said, "both independent creation and
a minimal degree of creativity are required." What's the difference? Everyone is applying the same law here; it's just a question of what the facts show. The court found that under these facts, there was no original expression.
JLW · 1 year ago

I hate the word "conflate." Wouldn't "confuse" work as well? Or better?
Once I saw the word "conflate," I had to disagree with your comment just out of anti-conflate principles.
I think a work has to clear some minimum threshold of originality. I.e., a little bit of originality isn't enough. Wasn't there a case on metal Uncle Sam banks that found insufficient originality to meet the minimum threshold?
JLW
esqmarty · 1 year ago

No, that's not the problem with my comment. My inclination to want to
protect ingenuity in achieving fidelity is what's questionable (See Prof
Patry's discussion of the opinion), but I'll stick with conflate, used here
to mean an improper melding.