翻译一个有趣的故事The court determined that the original piano-vocal

翻译一个有趣的故事
The court determined that the original piano-vocal version registered by Irving Berlin with the copyright office did not constitute a derivative work. As such, the court found that any "independent creation distinguishing the lead sheet from the piano-vocal arrangement was attributable to Woods before he sold the Song to Berlin." Factually, expert testimony established that any variations in the piano-vocal version were "insubstantial." The court con-cluded that Berlin's arrangement was effectively Woods's original composition before Berlin received rights to the work. This finding proved significant because Bourne's contention rested on the premise that Berlin's version constituted a separately copyrightable arrangement. If Berlin's version had constituted a derivative work, Bourne, as Berlin's successor in copyright, would have retained performance and royalty rights to that particular version.
Having decided that Berlin owned the copyright to Woods's original composition, the court looked to Bourne's 1981 arrangement of the song and its bass-line variation in order to determine whether it could constitute a copyright-able derivative work. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the arrangement "'in no way exhibit the degree of creativity required to make it a derivative work.'" Thus, the court found that, notwith-standing the non-derivative nature of Berlin's work, none of Bourne's arrangements rose to the level of independently protected derivative works.

法庭判定原piano-vocal版本注册办公室与著作权的欧文.柏林并不构成衍生著作.这样,法院认为任何“独立创作分辨铅板从piano-vocal安排被归因于伍兹之前,他卖掉了歌曲“柏林.的确,专家证据建立在piano-vocal任何变化都“脆弱”.”版本,法庭con-cluded,柏林的安排是有效的原始森林的权利之前收到的柏林工作.这一发现证明了很重要的,因为这一论点:落在柏林的版本的前提下,构成了一个单独copyrightable安排.如柏林的版本已构成一个衍生著作,柏林的继任者,如《著作权,将保留权利,性能和皇室的特殊版本.
已经决定,柏林的版权的原始森林,看起来是1981年1月1日的《安排,而bass-line变异,以确定它是否可以成为一个copyright-able衍生著作.第二次回路同意这个地区法院的结论,安排”以任何方式展现程度的创造力要求做这工作的一种衍生”因此,法院认为,notwith-standing性质的衍生的柏林的工作安排,《玫瑰是独立的保护衍生著作.