indications, slurs and phrasing claimed by plaintiff as its original work, was substantially original
as claimed, and as such, copyrightable.- Artistic work
Article 2(1) of the Berne Convention protects both artistic works in general and
also a specific list of artistic works, namely:works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and
lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works
expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied
art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works
relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.An artistic work is protected, whatever the subject it deals with – from abstract
painting and landscapes to technical drawings – and whether it is good art or
bad. The categories are also broadly interpreted.- Sculpture
The Venus de Milo and the works of Rodin are clearly sculpture. Perhaps even
sculptures made from sand or ice qualify, even though they may not last long.Attempts have also been made to expand the concept of sculpture to include
mass-produced articles.Greenfield Products Pty. Ltd v. Rover-Scott Bonnar Ltd (1990) 17 I.P.R. 417
(Australia: Federal Court)[The plaintiff argued that a part of a lawn mower engine (its drive mechanism)
and the moulds from which it was made were protected by copyright as
sculptures.]JUSTICE PINCUS:It appears to me clear that neither the moulds nor the drive mechanism, nor the parts of the latter,
are sculptures in the ordinary sense. It is true ... that some modern sculptures consist of or
include parts of machines, but that does not warrant the conclusion that all machines and parts
thereof are properly called sculptures, and similar reasoning applies to moulds. I respectfully
agree with the conclusion arrived at in the New Zealand Court of Appeal [in 1984] that frisbees
are not sculptures under the Copyright Act 1962 (N.Z.); that conclusion is consistent with mine.I therefore reject the submission that there can be copyright in the drive mechanism. I do so with
more confidence having regard to the concept of infringement by copying objects made from a
copyright drawing; the development of that doctrine would have been unnecessary if machinery
were itself the subject of copyright.- Title of a Work
The title of a work is often not protected because it may be (1) too short to be
“literary”, (2) not considered a separate work by itself, or (3) not considered to(^64) be a substantial part of the whole work.