Joseph Sotomi
Page 1 of 29
Originality in Copyright:
“A contested issue”
by Joseph Sotomi
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (LW556)
(2004/5)
Dissertation LW556
Alan Story
5000 words
Joseph Sotomi
Page 2 of 29
Abstract
Original is defined as ‘originating from the author’, but why such a definition
and even, why any definition.
This definition as false works arise from unconscious thoughts and forgotten
ideas, and new ideas and information move in a circle, all authors do is to
reshape the prior work of others, and as such how can any work be original.
This paper asks questions such as, is originality ever possible today? Can
authors be said to be original?
Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes are some of the intellectuals who asked
these questions. Barthes announces the ‘death of the author’, the dislodging
of the author from the seat of authority and Michel Foucault asks ‘what is
an author’, ‘what does it matter who is speaking’ and why can we not have a
future with a culture in which literature would circulate anonymously.
Originality is one of the fundamental and underlying principles of copyright
law which serves as a requirement for protection of a work; originality
should be a more certain concept and not a contested one.
This paper shall begin by introducing the concept of originality and its
importance to copyright. It shall then go onto look at the definition of
originality and the effects of the definition as to its merits and demerits.
It shall go on to define the ‘Author’, by tracing its different conceptions in
history to the conception today. To fully analyze ‘the author’ I would look at
the works of Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes.
Assess these writings and come to a critical conclusion that there really is
no originality today in the work of authors, as originality is but a legal fiction
that is misleading, flawed, problematic and inherently unascertainable.
Joseph Sotomi
Page 3 of 29
Introduction
"People in the oral age were little concerned about the origin of their
sayings." (Norderhaug)
It was accepted that individuals depended heavily on all that had come
before them and little emphasis was placed on the importance of
originality. When printed books eroded the importance of the spoken word
creativity/originality gradually became an important virtue for a text/author
to possess1.
The desire to protect individual author's rights lead to the establishing of
copyright laws.
In the UK this is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988 which protects the original literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works
of authorship including sound recordings, films, cable programmes,
Computer Programs for duration of some plus years after the death of the
author.
Originality is a very important concept in copyright law as it serves the
fundamental purpose as a criterion in assessing whether or not something
can be copyrighted.
This concept is an important justification of copyright law.
It is said to ensure the protection of the creative investment of the author.
1
Intellectual Property Law and the Net: An Introduction Yousuf Dhamee '96
http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/politics/intellectual.html
Joseph Sotomi
Page 4 of 29
This justification is a moral one as it is the view that the, the authors ‘toll
and sweat’ do not got to waste, that he/she has a natural right to
ownership of the fruits of his labour2.
Another importance is one more practical; that without the protection of
the ‘original’ works of authors there would be not economic incentive to
create.
Drier and Karnell in ‘Originality of Copyrighted Work3 identified some
functions of the Originality Criterion, as to:
-
encourage authors to create original works
-
enable authors to create works, unhampered by insulation
of tiny units from public access
-
balance protection and free access, in order to ensure that
creative work will be rewarded and scientific heritage can
be freely exploited as well as further developed by
everybody
-
allow for independent creation and use of all kinds of
material which must remain freely available for all
2
3
Philosophical writings of John Locke
…………………..
Joseph Sotomi
Page 5 of 29
In my understanding of copyright, two words intrigue me; The Author and
Original. I ask myself why the use of these specific word and are they
really necessary. Are they manufactured figments produced to define a
form of protection on works of individuals, a protection that may in the
future have no limits.
What is Originality?
Thomas Sharnol in his book titled “Originality” defined originality as the
thought characteristic of the individual who expresses himself and not
another; from which it follows that the moire distinctive the individuality the
higher will be the type of originality.
He saw an original mind is one which has more than the ordinary share in
the joys of evolution, and in the felicity of furthering those processes of
change that bring advantages, real and ideal4.
The Copyright Design and Patent Act 1988 states that copyright only
subsists in ‘original’ literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works …..’
‘Originality does, by the words of Prof. Franz van Isacker, of Belgium
share the same fate of the pink elephant, of being easy to recognize but
difficult to define’5
4
5
Part 8 of Introduction
Dreier & Karnell: Originality of Copyrighted Work: A European Perspective
Joseph Sotomi
Page 6 of 29
In ordinary language originality may be seen to mean fresh, newfashioned, newfangled, modern, modernistic, initial or primordial, but these
do not belong in the context of copyright.
Originality may be viewed by some as novelty but this should not be done.
Novelty is a fundamental requirement in Patenting not copyright. These
two concepts can be distinguished as a merely novel idea is one that can
be produced by the same set of generative rules as are other, familiar
ideas. Whereas a genuinely original or radically creative idea is one that
cannot6
In the United Kingdom there is no statutory definition of the term
originality. But one can be found looking at case-law.
In the case of University of London Press, Limited v. University
Tutorial Press, Limited [1916]
‘The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought.
…. the work must not be copied from another work – that it should
originate from the author’
Peterson J
Ladbrooke and Willam Hill Ltd [1964]
To be original in copyright the work must thus originate from the author;
and the creation of the work must involve and entail the author’s own skill,
judgment, effort or capital7
6
7
What is Creativity? Dimensions of creativity by Margaret A. Boden Pg 78
Ladbrooke and Williams
Joseph Sotomi
Page 7 of 29
And so, ‘although most works have to be original it is well accepted that
‘original’ means that the work has originated with and is the product of at
least a small amount of effort of the author.
This approach can be traced back Walter v Lane in 1900 in which the
House of Lords held that copyright could exist in notes of a speech of Lord
Roseberry taken down by a shorthand writer in the audience. And the
original effort involved in transcribing was said to be enough to justify
copyright protection.’8
Effects of the definition of originality (as originating from the author)
The definition of originality as originating from the author has advantages
but at the same time has disadvantages. The demerits however in my
view outweigh the merits. Therefore is it worth having such a criterion has
a fundamental element of copyrightable work?
Monopoly
Firstly, once the function of protection the authors work and providing a
living, one expects that such work fall in the public domain; but this does
not happen for a long time as the duration of protection given to authors is
life plus 70 in the United Kingdom. If an author shows he created a work
originating from him, he is able to get protection for the work even after his
death. This is my view clearly giving an individual too much power; and
this leads to exploitation, as the author can choose not to let others use
8
Laddie: Copyright: Over-Strenght, Over- Regulated, Over- Rated 259
Joseph Sotomi
Page 8 of 29
his work, and when he/she does, to charge exorbitant amounts for the use
of his work.
Secondly, the definition of Originality in the UK is not so rigid and every
day the bar is being lowered. Even when works do not really originate
from an author, he is still able to maneuver around it and get protection as
long as he can show he put in some time and effort.
The major adverse effect of the definition of originality is that, we are
applying an uncertain criterion to determine if copyright protection would
be given.
Some authors just renew, add onto or re-arrange the work of previous
work by other authors or idea and information from the public domain (as
explained below) and are then given protection over a such a work for a
duration of 70 years plus, after the death of the author.
Such authors would make so much money from works that did not arise
from them.
This is particularly unfair to the true owners or sources. It is unjust for
writers, authors and others to draw information from the pool of idea and
knowledge of the public, and then publish such ideas and information
which was commonly available and open to the public as theirs, and then
Joseph Sotomi
Page 9 of 29
make so much money from the copyright protection they would have on
such a work.
As anyone who wished to use such a work would then have to obtain the
consent and probably pay the copyright owner, for information and works
which would have been openly available to them.
What is an Author?
The word author is defined in the oxford advanced learner’s dictionary as
the writer of a book, play …, a person who creates or begins something.
In law the definition of authorship is not so different.
Under the s9 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1998 an author is
defined as the person who creates a work.
Under the Act the author is described as the person who expended the
necessary effort skill and labour in creating the work9 (primary works) or
the individual who makes the necessary commercial arrangements for the
creation of the work (secondary works).
Authorship and Originality in copyright law go hand in hand; one cannot be
justified without the other.
9
An approach accepted in cases such as; Ladbroke (Football) Ltd and William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1
W.L.R., which involved the creation of betting coupons. In Walter v Lane (1990) copyright subsisted in the
recording of a speech because the reporter had expended skill and effort in transposing the spoken into the
written word.
Joseph Sotomi
Page 10 of 29
Changes in our perception of ‘the author’
Looking at history it can be seen that it has been the view from early times
that there is no originality in the works of authors.
In the Renaissance the author was an unstable marriage of two distinct
concepts. He was seen first and foremost seen as a craftsman; that is, he
was a master of a body of rules, preserved and handed down to him in
rhetoric and poetics and secondly as ‘inspired’ by a muse or even God.
None of these two conceptions regarded the writer as distinctly and
personally responsible for his creation’10.
The author was viewed as a vehicle or instrument, who was either a
skilled manipulator of predefined strategies or as the subject of
independent forces who owe their works to a higher external agency11.
18th century theorist discarded this view of authorship for the element of
‘inspiration’. Inspiration was not seen as coming from above but rather
from within the writer. Giving birth to the term ‘original genius’
‘….. These moments of inspiration move in the course of time, to centre
reflection on the nature of writing. And as they are increasingly credited to
the writer’s own genius, they transform the writer into a unique individual
uniquely responsible for a unique product’
Woodmansee 1984
The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the Author –
Woodmansee (1984)
11
Woodmansee, M, The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of
the Author (1984) “Eighteenth Century Studies”
10
Joseph Sotomi
Page 11 of 29
Is the Author really important?
Some may agree with the conception of the author as original and the
works that arise from him/her are, but I choose not to. This is because;
‘Creative practices are largely derivative, generally collective, and
increasingly corporate and collaborative but yet we continue to think of
genuine authorship as solitary and original, and may even imagine the
value we assign it is timeless and universal12’
Our present conception of the author comes from the Romantic
mystification of the writing. It was from the radical reconceptualization of
the creative process. This present conception is in many ways flawed as I
shall go on to show.
This flawed conception leads to one asking the question, just how
important is the author?; As the romantic emphasis on the originality of
creative output is shaped by popular culture and thus it is difficult in
determining where the work of one author ends and the original output of
another began13.
12
13
Peter Jaszi and Martha Woodmansee - Report: Intellectual Property and the Construction of Authorship
Pg 92 Jennifer Davis, Intellectual Property Law
Joseph Sotomi
Page 12 of 29
My view is that there is no originality today in the work of authors and I
shall now look at the works of two intellectuals, Roland Barthes and Michel
Foucault to support my reasoning. As to;
What is an author? What purpose does he/she serve? How original are
the works of authors?
First of all I shall give you a brief insight into the works of Barthes and
Foucault.
Roland Barthes
Roland Barthes (1915 – 80) was the most brilliant and influential of the
generation of literary critics who came into prominence in France in the
1960s14.
Death of the Author
In 1968 Barthes announced 'the death of the author' and 'the birth of the
reader', declaring that 'a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its
destination'15
He produced highly idiosyncratic texts in which he challenged the
conventional distinctions between critic and creator, fiction and non-fiction,
literature and non-literature, from which arose his popular text on ‘The
Death of the Author’.
14
David Lodge Modern Criticism & Theory
15
(Barthes 1977, 148)
Joseph Sotomi
Page 13 of 29
‘ As soon as a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly
on reality but intransitively, that is to say, finally outside of any function
other than that of the very practice of the symbol itself, this disconnection
occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death,
writing begins16’
The phrase ‘the death of the author’, serves the purpose of dislodging the
author from the seat of authority; as literature in culture is tyrannically
centered on the author.
It follows that a text of writing is not a line of words releasing a single
theological meaning (message of the Author-God) but rather it is a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings none of them original,
blend and clash.
After announcing the ‘Death of the Author’ in 1968, He begun a revolution
of thought at the point where the reasoning was of the Author as the
source and guarantor of all meaning was the common view; he however
discarded the traditional, humanist concept of a single, human source of
all meaning.
He stated that it was positivism, the epitome and culmination of capitalist
ideology which attached the greatest significance to the ‘person’ of the
author.
And although the sway of the author had remained powerful, it had begun
to loosen.
16
The Death of the Author, Mordern Criticism and Theory, Lodge
Joseph Sotomi
Page 14 of 29
He viewed that Author as a diminishing figurine at the far end of the
literary stage.
That the author is thought to nourish the book, as he exists before it,
thinks, suffers and lives for it, as a father would to his child.
Works in particular writings are composite, neutral and oblique space
where our subject slips away, and identity is lost starting with that of the
person writing. And thus he saw no fixed meaning in writing and saw texts
as fields without origin.
Michel Foucault
Michel Foucault (1926-84) is described by some as a philosopher, social
scientist and historian of ideas. He was one of the most powerful and
influential figures in Paris in the 1960s and 1970s.
He was highly suspicious of claims to universal truths17, with which he
took an historicizing approach.
In his infamous essay ‘what is an author’, he looks at Barthes’s ‘Death of
the Author’ saying it is not so easy to abolish the idea of the author as
origin and owner of his work.
He looked at the relationship between the author and his work. He says
“the author remains an open ended question both with respect to its
general function within discourse …”
17
As said by one of his commentators, Paul Robinow
Joseph Sotomi
Page 15 of 29
He stated that an "author" only exists as the product of a text, or of writing.
Foucault showed the importance of the concept of the author by asking a
couple of rhetoric questions. He asked;
‘If an individual is not an author, what are we to make of the things he had
written or said, left among his papers or communicated to others?
Foucault in this essay talked about Beckett18 and a phrase he uttered
“What does it matter who is speaking”.
Foucault sees this sentence as an expression of some of the major
principles of contemporary writing, which he called ecriture.
Foucault stated that ‘in writing, the point is not to manifest or exalt the act
of writing, nor is it to pin a subject within language but it is rather a
question of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly
diappears’19.
Another major theme or principle of ecriture that Foucault sees expressed
in the Beckett quote is the idea of a connection between writing and death.
Throughout most of Western cultural history, writing has been a means of
staving off death, of becoming "immortal;" Foucault points to the Greek
epic, where the hero can die young because his epic feats have
guaranteed his immortality, and also to a non-Western text, The Arabian
Nights, where Scheherazade's storytelling night after night kept her from
being killed. In modern times, however, writing (ecriture) reverses the
18
19
Modernist novelist and play wright – Samuel Beckett
(p. 139b).
Joseph Sotomi
Page 16 of 29
equation; rather than guaranteeing immortality, or keeping death away,
writing "kills" the author.20
He saw works as once having the duty of providing immortality but now
possesses the right to kill ‘ it is the authors murderer’.
He concluded this essay, with a vision of a culture in which literature
would circulate anonymously. He further spoke of the industrialization of
the author and asked ‘at what time we began to recount the lives of
authors rather than heroes’
20
Professor Mary Klages, English Dept., University of Colorado, Boulder
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/foucault.html
Joseph Sotomi
Page 17 of 29
My Assessment on these writings
The concept of originality is an issue which the essays by Barthes and
Foucault revolve around.
They are critical of this concept and its relation to the author. For instance
Barthes announces the death of the author, meaning the author no longer
has the title as the originator of works, he/she has been dethroned from
the seat of power and authority, he then proceeds to treat texts as ‘fields
without origin’ and therefore no fixed meanings in writing.
Foucault takes a similar approach to Barthes as to announcing the death
of the author, he points out that it is we who give the author power and
make him so important and his works special and in doing this we offend
the true originality of their ideas.
By declaring the death of the author, Foucault and Barthes are
"deconstructing" the idea that the author is the origin of something original,
and replacing it with the idea that the "author" is the product or function of
writing, of the text.
I find the idea raised by both Barthes and Foucault very appealing but it is
not the case today the author still has some power and still has authority.
Today he/she is able to have their work copyrighted for over 70 years and
make tons of money from their ownership.
Joseph Sotomi
Page 18 of 29
Today that creation of new works is for often just for the financial and
economic gain of an individual (the author) rather than to serve and be a
benefit of the public.
For instance I would not argue that this essay is original, decades before I
was born various intellectuals had pondered upon the very questions I
have raised in this essay. All I have done is to draw from the ideas of
those before me and come to my own conclusion as to whether originality
really is the right concept to use in determining whether a work should be
copyrighted.
The works of these two intellectuals reinforce my argument that Originality
is but a legal fiction that is misleading, flawed, problematic and inherently
unascertainable.
Joseph Sotomi
Page 19 of 29
This prompts me to ask, is originality now impossible?
The definition of originality as originating from the author is misconceived
for a number of reasons
1. Works/ ideas arise from unconscious thoughts and forgotten ideas;
2. or the public domain;
3. and so how can we be certain that all works do originate from the
author
Unconscious/Forgotten Thoughts
Creativity is a puzzle, a paradox some say a mystery. Inventors and artists
rarely know how original ideas arise21.
Defining originality as originating from the author is not in all or most
circumstances true.
Most works by authors do not originate from them but rather from
unconscious thoughts and forgotten ideas that they picked up at some
point in their lives. Artists and authors typically have their creative ideas
unexpectedly, with little if any conscious awareness of how they arose 22
We as humans come across thoughts that were temporarily lost to us23.
These thoughts in spite of being lost influence our conscious minds.
21
What is Creativity? Dimensions of creativity by Margaret A. Boden Pg 75
Ibid 75
23
Jung, C.J. (1964) Haven’t I heard that idea before? Man and his Symbols
22
Joseph Sotomi
Page 20 of 29
‘Forgotten ideas do not cease to exist; although they cannot be
reproduced at will, they are present in a subliminal state –just beyond the
threshold of recall – from which they can rise spontaneously at any time24’
An author may be working when suddenly a fresh idea occurs to him, he
digresses and produces a fresh material that was unknown to him before
and he latter discovers what he has written bears a salient similarity to the
work of another author.
Another instance can be of a musician who has heard a popular tune in
his childhood and it comes into his compositions later in life. This was the
case in Francis Day & Hunter LTD v Bron and Another; in which the
question of unconscious copying and reproduction.
Examples
The stick man example
On December 29, 2004, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court
ordered Nike to pay 28-year-old Zhu Zhiqiang (better known as Xiao
Xiao), the cartoon creator of an animated stickman character 300,000
Yuan (US$36,000) for copyright infringement. In addition, Nike was
required to post a public apology on Sina.com. The claim arose from a
2003 Nike television advertisement featuring a stickman which was similar
to Xiao Xiao’s online animated character.
24
Man and his Symbols – Jung C.J. (1964)
Joseph Sotomi
Page 21 of 29
In response to the court’s decision, Zhang Zaiping, a Nike representative,
argued that since the stickman was already in the public domain and it
lacked originality, copyright protection should not be afforded to Xiao
Xiao’s stickman. It was further noted that Nike had spent $25 million Yuan
(US$3 million) and hired Wieden and Kennedy, an advertising company to
develop their stickman ad25.
Beethoven pinched his favourite tunes
In an article tilted “Revolutionary theory shows Beethoven pinched his
famous tunes”26 it was stated that ‘Beethoven one of Britain’s leading
conductors pinched many of his best known tunes from a group of
obscure French revolutionary composers working in a decade before he
produced his most famous symphonies.
It was further stated in this article that, ‘it shows that he was not an
isolated genius, isolated from politic and musical events.
It was further said that various composers at that time, the baroque age to
be specific, borrowed from one another; and then made something
extraordinary of it.
It finally stated that ‘originality was a new concept in classic music that
came about partly through romantic ideas about inspiration and is even
more important nowadays that people are eager to get as much earnings
from their works as possible.
25
Can a "Stickman" be original? A Chinese court thinks so... by Simon Teng
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
26
Glaister, D. The Guardian, May 11 1996
Joseph Sotomi
Page 22 of 29
These two examples just go to show just how much originality is none
existent in the creation of new work. For instance looking closely at the
stickman article the original of the stickman is not certain. In school, I like
the writer of the article, remember drawing stickmen and so did my friends
and classmates. Also in South France cave paintings have been seen to
display stickmen.
Therefore, how can Zhu Zhiqiang’s stickman be said to be an original
work; when it has been in the public domain for thousands of years.
To give protection to such works as the stickman, the degree of originality
is very low involving only skill and labour.
The original criterion is more defined on the grounds of structure and
arrangement rather than of the original work itself27
27
Irini A. Stamatoudi, Copyright and Multimedia Products
http://assets.cambridge.org/052180/8197/sample/0521808197ws.pdf
Joseph Sotomi
Page 23 of 29
How much creative output is should remain in what is often termed the
‘The Public Domain’.
“The public domain should be understood not as the realm of material that is
undeserving of protection, but as a device that permits the rest of the system to
work by leaving the raw material of authorship available for authors to use…
The public domain contains elements of authorship that easily seep into our
minds and our language or that for other reasons can be claimed by many
authors. A broad public domain protects potential defendants from incurring
liability through otherwise unavoidable copying. It protects would-be
plaintiffs by relieving them of the impossible and unwelcome obligation to
prove the actual originality of all elements of their works. It protects the
copyright system by freeing it from the burden of deciding questions of
ownership that it has no capacity to answer.”28
Since the nineteenth century, it has been usual to justify the existence of
copyright by arguing that it protects the creative investment of the
author29.
A major function served by copyright law is said to be to provide incentive
to authors and protect their moral rights.
It is therefore expected that when a work has been protected it goes back
into the public domain; as every new work is in some sense based on the
works that preceded it30.
‘Composers recombine sounds they have heard before; playwrights
base their characters on bits and pieces drawn from real human beings
and other playwrights’ characters; novelists draw their plots from lives and
other plots within their experience; software writers use the logic they find
in other software; lawyers transform old arguments to fit new facts;
Litman, J. “The Public Domain” (1990) 39 Emory Law Journal 965, pages 968-969
Jennifer Davis, Intellectual Property Law 2nd Edition – pg 92
30
Jessical Litman The Public 1990, Emory Law Journal
28
29
Joseph Sotomi
Page 24 of 29
cinematographers, actors, choreographers, architects, and sculptors
engage in the process of adapting, transforming, and recombining what is
already “out there” in some other form’31
How then can works be said to be original when they arise from a poll of
ideas in the society in general, from the public domain.
For instance in the Supreme Court case in United States of Feist
Publication, Inc v. Rural Telephone Service Co – 499 U.S. 340 (1991), it
was held that there was nothing original in the white pages of a phone
book , that
‘the raw data are un-copyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural
selected, coordinated and arranged those facts is not original in any way
…… it could not be more obvious and lacks the modicum of creativity
necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression’.
The drawing of works from the public domain by authors nullifies the
originality criterion; making it a flawed and misleading criterion.
31
Jessical Litman The Public 1990, Emory Law Journal
Joseph Sotomi
Page 25 of 29
A Deconstructive Approach to Originality
Ideas and information move in a circle and thus how can we be certain
where a specific idea originates from.
Originality is defined as originating from the author but it is my view there
is no absolute certainty or foundation for the meaning given to originality.
For example, the dictionary gives you the meaning of the word in terms or
other words; to be sure you would have to look at all the words relating to
it.
This was the conclusion also come to by Barthes and Foucault, they
deconstructed the idea that the author is the origin of something original,
and replaced it with the idea that the "author" is the product of writing.
In the United Kingdom, I can see the reason why a meaning for originality
is needed; as the English law is based on language rules and gaining
certainty.
But if there is to be a definition it should not be as originating from the
author as this conception is flawed because as a new idea does not come
into the mind without force, a person or an influence.
All that we are shown by the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 and
common law, is a comforting picture of the word original, not the true
meaning, not the true picture.
This makes our given conception of the word false and misleading.
Joseph Sotomi
Page 26 of 29
Conclusion
As David Vaver stated ‘intellectual property law starts from the premise
that ideas are free as the air – a common resource for all to use as they
can and wish. It then proceeds systematically to undermine that principle’.
One of the things that systematically undermine intellectual property law is
the concept of originality in copyright.
Originality is one of the first requirements to be fulfilled for copyright
protection of a work; it is very significant to copyright protection.
The fact that the concept of originality is flawed, misconceived and
unascertainable has a disastrous effect on the whole system of copyright
protection, making it equally misconceived, unfair and unjust.
There really is no originality today in the works of authors. And the
definition of originality as originating from the author is unnecessary and
misconceived.
“Creative geniuses” or “mere mortals”, we all borrow from one another. Art
imitates life, life imitates art, and writers imitate writers, as humans imitate
other humans in all spheres of life’32
The term originality should thereby be removed from copyright protection
as it undermines the system in more than many ways.
32
Intellectual Property Today: Of Myths and Paradoxes – Vaver, D (1990) 69 Can. Bar Rev 98
Joseph Sotomi
Page 27 of 29
Bibliography
Books
1. Lodge (ed.), ‘What is an author?’ by Michel Foucault. (…..1969) 174 – 187
2. David Lodge, Modern Criticism and Theory, ‘The death of the author?’, Roland
Barthes (second edition, 2000) pp146 – 151
3. Sharnol Thomas, Originality; a popular study of the creative mind, (1917)
4. Biriotti, Maurice and Nicola Miller, What is an author? (Edinburgh: Manchester
University Press, 1995).
5. John Caughie, (ed.) Theories of Authorship (Routledge, London and New York,
1981).
6. Margaret A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of Creativity
7. Dreier & Karnell, Originality of the Copyrighted Work: A European Perspective,
Copyright Society of the U.S.A.
Articles
8. Lemley, Mark “Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property (1997), 75 Texas
Law Review 871.
9. Jung, C.J “Man and his Symbols” (1964)
10. Jaszi P. and Woodmansee.M “Report: Intellectual Property and the Construction of
Authorship” – “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal conditions of
the Emergence of the Author”, (1984) 17” Eighteen Century Studies
11. Jessica Littman “The Public Domain” (1990) 39 Emory Law Journal 965
12. Laddie: Copyright: Over-Strenght, Over-Regulated, Over-Rated [1996] 5 EIPR 259
Joseph Sotomi
Page 28 of 29
13. Vaver, D: Intellectual Property Today: Of Myths and Paradoxes (1990) 69 Can. Bar
Rev 98
Cases
14. University of London Press, Limited v. University Tutorial Press, Limited [1916] 2
Ch 601
15. Express Newspapers Plc v News (UK) Ltd (1990) 1 WLR 1320, 1324-7
16. Ladbroke Ltd v William Hill Ltd. [1964] 1 All ER 465
17. United States of Feist Publication, Inc v. Rural Telephone Service Co – 499 U.S.
340 (1991)
Websites
18. Irini A. Stamatoudi, Copyright and Multimedia Products
http://assets.cambridge.org/052180/8197/sample/0521808197ws.pdf (accessed: 27
February 2005)
19. Professor Mary Klages, University of Colorado, Boulder
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/foucault.html (accessed: 1 March
2004)
20. Intellectual Property Law and the Net: An Introduction Yousuf Dhamee '96
http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/politics/intellectual.html
Joseph Sotomi
Page 29 of 29
21. Shifting Theories of Authorship and Subject Autonomy in Barthes and Foucault
Andres Luco, English 111, 1999 (accessed: 6 January 2005)
22. Intellectual Property Law and the Net: An Introduction - Yousuf Dhamee '96
(accessed: 6 January 2005)
23. http://www.jahsonic.com/Author.html (accessed: 10 December 2004),
http://www.arasite.org/barthes.htm) (accessed: 10 December 2004)