The cited URL points to the district court decision; however, the cited quote is not in the district court decision, but rather in the decision for the appealed case's decision, which can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 78/565525/In order for a work to qualify as a derivative work it must be independently copyrightable. The basis for copyright protection contained in both the constitution and the Copyright Act is originality of authorship. While a certificate of copyright registration, such as the one that Berlin obtained for the piano-vocal arrangement, creates a presumption of copyrightability, the existence of a registration certificate is not dispositive. We thoroughly discussed the standard of originality in a derivative work in our in banc decision in Batlin. There we held that "there must be at least some substantial variation [from the underlying work], not merely a trivial variation." Further, "the requirement of originality [cannot] be satisfied simply by the demonstration of 'physical skill' or 'special training'...". [...]
Earlier in its opinion, the district court correctly cited the statutory definition of a derivative work, which the court said required "the 'modification' to the composition to be an original work of authorship." Following its apparent exaggeration of the standard for derivative work originality, the court explained that [there must be] something of substance added making the piece to some extent a new work with the old song embedded in it but from which the new has developed. It is not merely a stylized version of the original song where a major artist may take liberties with the lyrics or the tempo, the listener hearing basically the original tune. It is, in short, the addition of such new material as would entitle the creator to a copyright on the new material.
Can somebody correct the URL (or the quote, I guess) so that they match each other? Thank you!