[diffeomorphism]

And? That does not address the question and note how you used "work of art" instead of code.

The fact is that lots of things can be "work" but that we as society do not want to bestow copyright for them. Again, the question is not "did someone put in work to make a good API?" but "are APIs something that should be copyrightable?".

Going with the recipe analogy: Society might be willing to give you some kind of recognition for "Joe's sandwich with this detailed recipe", but it is not going to give you an exclusive monopoly over "any and all dishes consisting of (bread, topping, condiment, vegetable)". Copyright is intended to reward creation, not to stifle any sort of however far away competition.

[Twisell]

The whole point is that a "work of art" is by definition copyrightable. That's the whole Oracle line of argumentation.

You may disagree but here they are before the supreme court to rule about this. So the only thing I'm confident about is that it's not trivial question.

As said by others fair-use is a totally other point and if granted could offer Google some relieve.

Oracle must win on both points.