{"title":"明星运动后应用艺术及工艺美术作品的版权保护","authors":"J. Ginsburg","doi":"10.7916/JLA.V43I3.5887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the very first session proclaimed, the Star Athletica case has not been a model of total clarity on the Supreme Court’s part. I’m going to explore that proposition. I will go through some basic elements of the copyright statute, and will then apply those rules to several examples. The Copyright Act sets out the category of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural (“PGS”) works, whose statutory definition includes applied art. That was the subject matter at issue in Star Athletica. The statute also provides that PGS works “shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned.” “Works of artistic craftsmanship” has been a somewhat overlooked category, but I think, as a result of Star Athletica and also the pending amendments of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, that this category will receive a lot more attention. It does not, however, necessarily follow that the meaning of that category will be any clearer than the standard for what is a PGS work.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Copyright Protection for Applied Art and Works of Artistic Craftsmanship After Star Athletica\",\"authors\":\"J. Ginsburg\",\"doi\":\"10.7916/JLA.V43I3.5887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As the very first session proclaimed, the Star Athletica case has not been a model of total clarity on the Supreme Court’s part. I’m going to explore that proposition. I will go through some basic elements of the copyright statute, and will then apply those rules to several examples. The Copyright Act sets out the category of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural (“PGS”) works, whose statutory definition includes applied art. That was the subject matter at issue in Star Athletica. The statute also provides that PGS works “shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned.” “Works of artistic craftsmanship” has been a somewhat overlooked category, but I think, as a result of Star Athletica and also the pending amendments of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, that this category will receive a lot more attention. It does not, however, necessarily follow that the meaning of that category will be any clearer than the standard for what is a PGS work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V43I3.5887\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V43I3.5887","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
正如第一届会议所宣布的那样,“运动明星”一案并不是最高法院立场完全清晰的典范。我将探索这个命题。我将介绍版权法的一些基本要素,然后将这些规则应用于几个例子。《版权法》规定了图画、图形和雕塑(“PGS”)作品的类别,其法定定义包括应用艺术。这就是《体育明星》争论的主题。该规约还规定,PGS作品“应包括艺术工艺作品,就其形式而言,但不涉及其机械或实用方面。“艺术工艺作品”一直是一个被忽视的类别,但我认为,由于Star Athletica和即将修订的《美国版权局实践纲要》(Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices),这个类别将受到更多关注。然而,这并不一定意味着该类别的含义将比什么是PGS作品的标准更清楚。
Copyright Protection for Applied Art and Works of Artistic Craftsmanship After Star Athletica
As the very first session proclaimed, the Star Athletica case has not been a model of total clarity on the Supreme Court’s part. I’m going to explore that proposition. I will go through some basic elements of the copyright statute, and will then apply those rules to several examples. The Copyright Act sets out the category of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural (“PGS”) works, whose statutory definition includes applied art. That was the subject matter at issue in Star Athletica. The statute also provides that PGS works “shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned.” “Works of artistic craftsmanship” has been a somewhat overlooked category, but I think, as a result of Star Athletica and also the pending amendments of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, that this category will receive a lot more attention. It does not, however, necessarily follow that the meaning of that category will be any clearer than the standard for what is a PGS work.