Page:Daniel Schrock v. Learning Curve International, Inc. 7th Cir. 08-1296.djvu/14

 The competition sponsor commissioned another artist to create a similar plate, and Gracen sued the sponsor, MGM, and the artist for copyright infringement. We held that Gracen  could not  maintain  her  infringement suit because her painting, a derivative  work, was not “substantially different from the underlying work  to  be copyrightable.” Id. at 305.

Gracen drew this  language  from  an  influential Second Circuit decision, L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1976). Read in context, however, the cited language from L. Batlin did not suggest that a heightened standard of originality applies to derivative works. To the contrary, the Second Circuit said only  that  to  be copyrightable a work must “&thinsp;‘contain some substantial, not merely trivial originality.’&thinsp;” Id. at 490 (quoting