On 5/10/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's very clear that what copyright is protecting is not the symbols which > > comprise a document but the creative content that they represent.
> This could be different in common law copyright, but the idea in > authorship (droit d'auteur) is not that creativity grants protection, > but originality. The question to be answered is "does the work bear > the mark of the author?" The question whether or not a work has > creative content in the first place is not being asked. This stems > from a deeper prerequisite of copyright, i.e. that the work must be > tangible. Authorshiprights indeed protects the symbols, not the > creative content. It is only in its tangible form that it can receive > protection, mere ideas, however creative they may be. Copyright > protection only protects the expression. No disagreement here. Well, ecept that authorship rights protect the tangible form in which the symbols are presented, not the symbols themselves. The symbols themselves (for example: letters taken individually, or words taken out of context) are not being protected. Only the symbols arranged in a manner which represents the protected ideas are subject to copyright protection. And you're right that there are other issues which are relevant in determining whether a work gets protected, and you're right that originality is a key issue. A unique sequence of words describing the affairs of Harry Potter would likely be subject to J.K.Rowling's copyright even if J.K.Rowling were not the person who wrote that particular sequence of words, and this would be because of this originality issue. -- Raul
