[zozbot234]

If close paraphrase can be detected, this ought to be proof enough that some non-trivial element of creativity was involved in the original text. Because purely functional and necessary elements are not protected by copyright, even when they would otherwise be creative (this is technically known as the 'scenes à faire' case) - and surely a "quote" which is unavoidable because it factually and unquestionably is the core of the ruling would have to fall under that.

[DrScientist]

Isn't the argument that the act of selecting the right quote is the real work - and the work the copier avoided in the act of copying?

You could argue that all the words are already in the dictionary - so none of them are new, you are just quoting from the dictionary in a particular order......

The reason you have people, rather than computers interpreting the law, is you can make judgements that make sense. Fundamentally these laws are there to protect work being unfairly ripped off.

What was clearly done in this case was a rip-off which damaged the original creator - everything else is dancing on the head of a pin.

[zozbot234]

Copyright does not protect work ("sweat of the brow"), it only protects expression and creativity. Thus, whenever there is only one right expression or even a bare handful in any given context, copyright does not apply to that particular choice. By analogy, arranging words in some semi-arbitrary order can be an expressive choice, whereas using what's effectively a fixed phrase is not, even though the two might look similar and involve a comparable amount of "work".

[DrScientist]

The intention of copyright is to protect useful work.

The detail of how to do that in fair way that doesn't block other people is complex[1] - you can never cover all possibilities in a written law - that's why you have people interpreting them and making judgements. All I'm saying is the guiding light in that interpretation is copyright is there to protect the justifiable work of people in a fair way.

Somebody taking those law notes and trivially copying them to directly compete is clearly not 'fair use'.

If those notes could have been created mechanically directly from the original source - why didn't the copier do that - rather than use the competitors work?

[1] given the endless creativity of humans to game systems.

[zozbot234]

> The intention of copyright is

..."to promote the progress of science and useful arts". I don't see anything in there about rewarding 'work' irrespective of whether that work involves any kind of creativity.

> If those notes could have been created mechanically directly from the original source - why didn't the copier do that

That's actually a very good question. In practice, I do absolutely agree that the notes involve plenty of originality and creativity.

[DrScientist]

The intention of copyright is ..."to promote the progress of science and useful arts". I don't see anything in there about rewarding 'work' irrespective of whether that work involves any kind of creativity.

Not sure where you got that quote from, but I'd say the work aspect is implicit in the "promote the progress" - ie progress requires that people are able to get paid in their work to progress science or the useful arts.

If the progress was trivial and required no work then it wouldn't need protection or promotion.

And sure it's phrased that way to get the balance between fair use and protection - but if there was no need of protection then copyright wouldn't need to exist - as free reuse is the default.