Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to put this project on hold until copyright review slows down. If anybody else would like to fill in, that would be absolutely fine. Respectfully, Emery 06:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, this following generalization is given: "In other words, creativity is not required for a work to be original." In light of the court cases helpfully cited, I think this summation would be better if it were worded thus (changes in italics): In other words, a minimal level of creativity is required for a work to be original. The thrust of the reasoning in the cases cited is there there must be some sort of evidence of thought, consideration and labor on the part of a claimant that goes beyond the act of mere copying. Carolus 04:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
