[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-136132-en":3,"doc-seo-136132-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":92},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":27,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},136132,13056703020460,"Valentina","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253dac470eee5d?_k=1778207105932848923",8,"Research & Report","THE SEMANTICS OF AUTHORIAL ORIGINALITY: FOUR PILLARS","The paper examines and compares American and European copyright law through the U.S. Supreme Court’s Star Athletica decision and the CJEU’s Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle opinions, focusing on how “useful articles” and clothing/designs are evaluated for originality. It explains that originality functions as an essentially human, intimacy-based faculty that escapes rigid legal definition, yet copyright law incorporates safeguards via stronger protection for highly creative works. The analysis frames digital-era jurisdictional differences and addresses whether AI-generated works could claim authorship, using shared approaches despite varying tests.","29 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 235  \nTexas Intellectual Property Law Journal  \nMay, 2021  \nArticle  \nMolly Torsen Stecha1  \nCopyright © 2021 by State Bar of Texas, Intellectual Property Law Section; Molly Torsen Stech  \nTHE SEMANTICS OF AUTHORIAL ORIGINALITY: FOUR PILLARS  \nAbstract  \nIn March 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court published its opinion in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. ; in September of 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union published its opinions in Cofemel v. G-Star Raw CV; and in June 2020, its opinion in Brompton Bicycle Ltd v. Chedech. The American case treats the copy-rightability of a design on cheerleading uniforms, and the European cases treat the copyrightability of the design of denim jeans and the design of a folding bicycle, respectively. Copyright protection for articles of clothing and designs differs markedly between the United States and Europe, but this particular trio of high court cases construes something more fundamental while parsing the contours of useful articles under their respective laws: they draw attention to the existing legal landscapes for determining originality. If originality is the sina qua non of copyright law, per 1991's U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Feist Publ'ns v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., then these cases, and the laws and cases they rely on, present some new--and some old--guidance and lingering questions regarding the very underpinning of copyrightability.  \nThis paper explores and compares American and European law, underscores similarities between them and inconsistencies within them, and concludes that originality remains an essentially intimate, human faculty, and one that escapes legal definition across creative media. That said, aspects of copyright law save it from itself, for example by conferring stronger protection on works that demonstrate a higher saturation of creativity. As the digital economy grows and shines a light on the distinctions between individual jurisdictions' copyright laws, the modest--but steadfast--hurdle to copyrightability remains indicia of ideation, imagination, and individuality. This is especially important right now as countries consider whether artificial intelligence is or should be eligible to claim authorship in the works they produce. While “author's own intellectual creation”is European verbiage describing the floor for authorial originality for the Member States of the European Union, it is equally serviceable in the United States and elsewhere. Because the types of works considered copyrightable are potentially expanding on both sides of the Atlantic *236 based on the Court decisions listed above, it is important to demonstrate, firstly, that originality in a work is not a foregone conclusion and, secondly, that many jurisdictions share an approach, if not a specific test or definition, for finding originality.  \nTable of Contents  \nI. Introduction: Originality's History and Inherent Imprecision 236  \nA. The United States 244  \nB. A Note on Originality's Nexus with Authorship 249  \nC. The European Union 251  \nII. The CJEU's Test is Flexible and Compatible with the State of American Law 256  \nA.“Author's” 257  \n1. Only Humans May Be Authors 258  \n2. Intent Should not Be Relevant to a Finding of Originality 258  \nB.“Own” 261  \nC.“Intellectual” 262  \n © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1  \n1. Aesthetic Neutrality 263  \n2. Creative Choices 264  \n3. Using Creative Choices To Mimic Preexisting Works 267  \nD.“Creation” 269  \n1. The Subject Matter of an Original Work is Broad 269  \n2. The United States Requires Works To Be Fixed 269  \n3. Protection for Original Works Ranges From Thin to Thick 270  \nIII. Conclusion 271  \nI. Introduction: Originality's History and Inherent Imprecision  \nThe concept of [originality ... is](originality ... is) not used in a completely uniform manner. [S]ome ... national laws ... apply amore demanding originality test. Under (those) laws, it is not sufficient that","cbCaiqxhFc8LamIV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqxhFc8LamIV","pdf",511491,1,32,"English","en",105,"# Introduction: Originality's History and Inherent Imprecision\n## The United States\n## A Note on Originality's Nexus with Authorship\n## The European Union\n# The CJEU's Test is Flexible and Compatible with the State of American Law\n## “Author's”\n## “Own”\n## “Intellectual”\n## “Creation”\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"Which landmark cases does the paper use to discuss authorial originality?\",\"answer\":\"It analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s Star Athletica decision and the CJEU’s Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle decisions, each addressing originality and copyrightability for different design-related subject matter.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper characterize originality in copyright law?\",\"answer\":\"Originality is described as an essentially intimate, human faculty that resists strict legal definition across creative media, even as legal standards seek operational guidance.\"},{\"question\":\"What role does originality play when considering AI authorship and authorship eligibility?\",\"answer\":\"As countries consider whether AI-generated works could claim authorship, the paper argues that the originality requirement still provides a meaningful hurdle grounded in indicia of ideation, imagination, and individuality.\"}]","THE SEMANTICS OF AUTHORIAL ORIGINALITY: FOUR PILLARS | PDF",1787349727,81,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":87,"head_meta":89,"extra_data":91,"updated_unix":28},"the-semantics-of-authorial-originality-four-pillars","",{"@graph":36,"@context":86},[37,54,69],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-semantics-of-authorial-originality-four-pillars/136132/",4,{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":13,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":63,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":64,"interactionStatistic":65},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":41,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-03","2026-08-21",true,{"@type":66,"interactionType":67,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":68},"ViewAction",{"@type":70,"mainEntity":71},"FAQPage",[72,78,82],{"name":73,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":75},"Which landmark cases does the paper use to discuss authorial originality?","Question",{"text":76,"@type":77},"It analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s Star Athletica decision and the CJEU’s Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle decisions, each addressing originality and copyrightability for different design-related subject matter.","Answer",{"name":79,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":80},"How does the paper characterize originality in copyright law?",{"text":81,"@type":77},"Originality is described as an essentially intimate, human faculty that resists strict legal definition across creative media, even as legal standards seek operational guidance.",{"name":83,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":84},"What role does originality play when considering AI authorship and authorship eligibility?",{"text":85,"@type":77},"As countries consider whether AI-generated works could claim authorship, the paper argues that the originality requirement still provides a meaningful hurdle grounded in indicia of ideation, imagination, and individuality.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":88,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":90,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":93},[94,98,102,106,111,116,121,124,129,132,136],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":53,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":113,"show_sort_weight":114,"slug":115},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":118,"show_sort_weight":119,"slug":120},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":123},30,"research-report",{"id":125,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":126,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":128},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":130,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":131},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":133,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":134,"show_sort_weight":133,"slug":135},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":137,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":138,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":139},19,"General","general"]