Kūrinio originalumo samprata

The article deals with one of the features of work – originality. Using comparative and system analysis methods the conception of originality is examined in two main aspects: originality as criteria to determine whether the work is a result of creative work and originality as criteria to determine if the result of work is not copied from the other work. The first meaning of originality in the states with different law systems is examined: the objective requirement of originality is applied in common law states (the work is original if enough of labour, skill and judgement invested in it); the subjective requirement of originality is applied in continental law states (the work is original if it reflects the personality of the author). The changes in conception of originality in modern works are discussed. The need to protect the new non-material values conditions the declining of requirements for originality. The originality is kept when the work is the result of author’s personal creative activity. The author comes to a conclusion that currently the different requirements of originality for the different kinds of works are applied: the high level of originality is typical for traditional works of art and lower level is characteristic for applied art works and new forms of works (databases, computer programs, photography). The example of case law where the court stated the originality of work, which was created using computer programs, is given. Analysing the second meaning of originality the author searches for the criteria which lets to state the originality of derivative work and the illegal use of work. The problem of protected and non-protected elements of work (the dichotomy of content and form) is discussed, trying to define not protected elements which are not subject of exclusive authors’ rights. The originality of derivative works is examined, saying that the common requirements of originality for them are applied. The article contains review of Lithuanian case law examples: the court stated the violation of copyright because new drawings were exact or similar copy of original ones. The conclusions are given in the end of article.