pyright protection.
Stating that a work must be "original" to qualify for copyright protection
begs the question of what definition of originality shall be chosen. The
Supreme Court first addressed this issue in Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing
Co.,22 a suit for the infringement of three chromolithographed posters
advertising a circus. A directed verdict for the defendant was sustained by the
court of appeals, which took the position that if a "picture has no other use
than that of a mere advertisement, and no value aside from this function, it
would not be promotive of the useful arts, within the meaning of the
constitutional provision, to protect the 'author' in the exclusive use thereof,
.... ,3 and held that it could not find "anything useful or meritorious in the
design copyrighted by the plaintiffs in error other than as an advertisement
.... 24 The Supreme Court reversed. Speaking for the majority, Justice
Holmes redefined the issue of copyrightability by focusing on the contribution
of the author necessary for copyrightability rather than the purpose to which
the work was put. Justice Holmes then gave what has become the seminal
description of originality: