Page:Daniel Schrock v. Learning Curve International, Inc. 7th Cir. 08-1296.djvu/12

 depicting the toys. Schrock explained how he used various camera and lighting techniques to make the toys look more “life like,” “personable,” and “friendly.” He explained how he tried to give the toys “a little bit of dimension” and that it was his goal to make the toys “a little bit better than what they look like when you actually see them on the shelf.” The original expression in the representative sample is not particularly great (it was not meant to be), but it is enough under the applicable standard to warrant the limited copyright protection accorded derivative works under.

Aside from arguing that the works  fail under the generally accepted test for originality, Learning Curve and HIT offer two additional reasons why we should conclude that Schrock’s photographs are not original. First, they claim that the photos are intended to serve the “purely utilitarian function” of identifying products for consumers. The purpose of the photographs, however, is irrelevant. See Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251-52 (1903); SHL Imaging, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d at 311 (“That the photographs were intended solely for commercial use has no bearing on their protectibility.”).

The defendants’ second and more substantial argument is  that it  is not enough that Schrock’s photographs might pass the ordinary test for originality; they claim that as derivative works, the photos  are subject  to  a higher standard of originality. A leading copyright commentator disagrees. The Nimmer treatise maintains that the quantum of originality required for copyright in a derivative work is the same as that required for copyright