外文翻譯--鑒于美國(guó)版權(quán)辦公室新的匯編特征，將瑜伽和其他體育運(yùn)動(dòng)的版權(quán)擴(kuò)展至極限（節(jié)選）

1、2200 單詞， 單詞，12500 英文字符 英文字符,3800 漢字 漢字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Bussey A. Stretching Copyright to Its Limit: On the Copyrightability of Yoga and Other Sports Movements in Light of the U.S. Copyright Office's New Characterization

2、of Compilations[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2013.JEFFREY S. MOORAD SPORTS LAW JOURNALVOLUME XX 2013 ISSUE 1ArticlesSTRETCHING COPYRIGHT TO ITS LIMIT:ON THE COPYRIGHTABILITY OF YOGA AND OTHER SPORTS MOV

3、EMENTS IN LIGHT OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE’S NEW CHARACTERIZATION OF COMPILATIONSALEXANDER BUSSEYI. COPYRIGHTING YOGA AND EXERCISE ROUTINESIn the words of the OSYU court, “[o]n first impression, it . . . seems inappro

4、priate, and almost unbelievable, that a sequence of yoga positions could be any one person’s intellectual property,” yet the issue is not so obvious.73 This part examines how one might construe the copyright act to af

5、ford protection to yoga and other similar exercise routines.There are a number of issues to consider when determining the copyrightability of yoga and exercise routines. First, these athletic activities are most c

6、losely related to choreographic works. If they cannot be classified as choreographic works, then one might argue that yoga and exercise routines could fall back on the protection of compilations like the Bikram exampl

7、e, at least prior to the Office’s recent statement of policy. But even if yoga and other exercise routines can be contorted to fit within either of these categories, they must still overcome a number of issues, includ

8、ing originality, the merger doctrine, and the functionality doctrine. This part examines how yoga and exercise routines are affected by each of these issues.A. Yoga and Exercise as ChoreographyWhen Congress passed the

9、 Copyright Act of 1976, it assumed that pantomimes and choreographic works had “fairly settled meanings.”74 Despite failing to provide a definition for these works, the House did indicate that “ ‘choreographic works’ d

10、o not include social dance steps and simple routines.”75 This likely rules out the Macarena and the waltz, but the term “simple routines” is not with- out its own ambiguities.In 1984, the Office picked up what Congres

11、s left undone, pro- viding its own definition of choreographic works in the dance moves, and (2) arranges them into (3) an original work.In OSYU, Bikram argued that his yoga routine was in fact copy- righted as a compila

12、tion of asanas because he coordinated the pre- existing postures in a new, original fashion.85 And, apparently, neither the court nor the Office opposed this argument at the time.86 But even if a yoga or exercise ro

13、utine fits into this category, or the category of choreographic works, there are still a number of hurdles to clear in order to receive copyright protection.C. Limitations on Copyrighting Yoga and Exercise Routine1. Fi

14、xation and OriginalityAs previously mentioned, all copyrightable subject matter must be an “original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium ofexpression.”87 The fixation requirement is easily overcome. Simply r

15、ecording a routine on video is sufficient to fix the work.88 Original- ity, however, is not as straightforward.As OSYU explained, originality is generally a question of fact.89 But the standard is fairly low. In MLB, th

16、e Seventh Circuit held that baseball players’ performances in a baseball game are sufficiently creative to overcome the originality requirement, even though in most instances they merely react to the movements of the

17、ball and other players.90 The Feist court held that arranging names in alphabetical order was insufficiently original to garner copyright protection in a phonebook.91 However, in another case the court held that a ph

18、one book that selected business based on their interest to a Chinese community was sufficiently original.92 It seems then, that some arrangements of simple exercise steps could satisfy the origi- nality requirement.2.

19、 Idea/Expression Dichotomy & the Merger DoctrineThe idea/expression dichotomy, which is similar to the merger doctrine, was first discussed in the nineteenth century case Baker v. Selden.93 In that case, the plainti

20、ff, Selden, attempted to enforce a copyright in relation to a book that described a method of book- keeping and included copies of a number of bookkeeping forms.94 Selden attempted to enjoin another from selling a book

21、 that included very similar forms.95 The court held that “there is a clear distinction between the book, as such, and the art which it is in-tended to illustrate.”96 In other words, the book is copyrightable, and an e

22、xact duplication of the book would have been copyright infringement, but the system described in the book is not copyright- able because it is merely an idea. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Such a system might be protec

23、table under patent law, but not under copyright.The Ninth Circuit explains merger like this: “[w]hen the ‘idea’ and its expression are . . . inseparable, copying the ‘expression’ will not be barred, since protecting