No one doubts that two directories, independently made, are each entitled to copyright, regardless of their similarity, even though it amount to identity. "Directories constitute a familiar instance of such compilations. Certainly, the labor of the second translator or compiler is not lost, so he do not use the work of the first. It could not be maintained that the earlier version destroyed the copyright of the later, and yet, if copyright be analogous to patents, this must result.
While it may be rare that they should be identical, obviously even that is possible over substantial parts. 145, 150-151: "Take, for example, two faithful compilations or translations. See Judge Learned Hand in Fred Fisher, Inc. Hartford Empire Co., 7 Cir., 173 F.2d 49, 53 Interstate Hotel Co. Tylor, 2 Cir., 178 F.2d 128 Turner Glass Corp. Accordingly, we were not ignoring the Constitution when we stated that a "copy of something in the public domain" will support a copyright if it is a "distinguishable variation" or when we rejected the contention that "like a patent, a copyrighted work must be not only original, but new", adding, "That is not * * * the law as is obvious in the case of maps or compendia, where later works will necessarily be anticipated." All that is needed to satisfy both the Constitution and the statute is that the "author" contributed something more than a "merely trivial" variation, something recognizably "his own." Originality in this context "means little more than a prohibition of actual copying." No matter how poor artistically the "author's" addition, it is enough if it be his own. It is clear, then, that nothing in the Constitution commands that copyrighted matter be strikingly unique or novel.
0 kommentar(er)
