<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
			
			<rss version="2.0">
			<channel>
			<title>Filewrapper&#xae; |  A patent, trademark, and copyright law blog by MVS - Originality</title>
			<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm</link>
			<description>News and Commentary from the world of Intellectual Property Law - The blawg of McKee, Voorhees &amp;amp Sease, P.L.C.</description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 14:28:27-0500</pubDate>
			<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:28:00-0500</lastBuildDate>
			<generator>BlogCFC</generator>
			<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
			<managingEditor>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</managingEditor>
			<webMaster>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</webMaster>
			
			
			
			
			
			<item>
				<title>Tenth Circuit: Digital model of car not separately copyrightable because no originality</title>
				<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2008/6/19/Tenth-Circuit-Digital-model-of-car-not-separately-copyrightable-because-no-originality</link>
				<description>
				
				In a decision this week, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit&quot;&gt;Tenth Circuit&lt;/a&gt;  affirmed a district court&amp;#39;s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a copyright case, finding a digital work lacking sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection.&amp;nbsp; The works at issue were three-dimensional computer models of cars for use in advertisements. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The court agreed that the plaintiff &amp;quot;made many judgments that required both skill and technical know-how.&amp;nbsp; Those judgments may have even involved &amp;#39;creativity,&amp;#39; as that word is commonly used.&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; However, the end result was simply a copy of the car in a different medium.&amp;nbsp; In fact, the plaintiff&amp;#39;s intent was to reproduce the underlying work with absolute fidelity.&amp;nbsp; Thus, the work lacked any original addition to the underlying work and was not eligible for copyright protection.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More on &lt;em&gt;Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.&lt;/em&gt; after the jump.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
				 [More]
				</description>
						
				
				<category>Originality</category>				
				
				<category>Copyrights</category>				
				
				<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:28:00-0500</pubDate>
				<guid>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2008/6/19/Tenth-Circuit-Digital-model-of-car-not-separately-copyrightable-because-no-originality</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			
			
			<item>
				<title>Fourth Circuit affirms refusal of copyright registration:  insufficient creativity</title>
				<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2007/5/25/Fourth-Circuit-affirms-refusal-of-copyright-registration--insufficient-creativity</link>
				<description>
				
				&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit&quot;&gt;Fourth Circuit&lt;/a&gt;  yesterday affirmed the denial of copyright registration to an individual who had adapted &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.census.gov/&quot;&gt;United States Census&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/stco_wall_2003/stco03_wallmap.htm&quot;&gt;maps&lt;/a&gt;  for use on his website.&amp;nbsp; The only changes to the maps were the addition of colors, changing the typeface of the state abbreviations, and a change in layout for some of the state indications.&amp;nbsp; The court affirmed the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.copyright.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Copyright Office&quot;&gt;Copyright Office&amp;#39;s&lt;/a&gt;  determination that the adapted maps were not copyrightable.&amp;nbsp; They were derivative works of the U.S. Census maps, and therefore only the added or changed portions were subject to copyright protection.&amp;nbsp; However, the modifications were entirely &amp;quot;uncopyrightable elements such as a change of layout, format, size, spacing, or coloring,&amp;quot; and so the refusal to register was affirmed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;More details of &lt;em&gt;Darden v. Peters&lt;/em&gt; after the jump.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
				 [More]
				</description>
						
				
				<category>Originality</category>				
				
				<category>Registration</category>				
				
				<category>Derivative works</category>				
				
				<category>Copyrights</category>				
				
				<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 09:37:00-0500</pubDate>
				<guid>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2007/5/25/Fourth-Circuit-affirms-refusal-of-copyright-registration--insufficient-creativity</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			</channel></rss>