What Defines Originality?

 

Whilst filing for the copyright, of course, one would be asked whether the work is original or translation or adaptation as shown below.

But according to me, what is Copyrightable shouldn’t qualify to implicitly become Original, or be part of the term - > Originality.

Let us take some examples. Can Work of Journalism, Podcasts, Talk Shows, Reference Books, Commentaries, be considered as part of Originality? It maybe of course Copyrightable. But, is it truly Original? According to me, maybe Not; and I would explain why, albeit it is Copyrightable, but not necessary, Original.

Look! Work of Journalism, Podcasts, Talk Shows, are basically Collage of Different Work Assembled together, mostly already known. As an analogy, maybe they can be considered as Innovation, but not necessarily Invention. Huge Difference! As Invention is always greater than Innovation, as the latter is merely collection of different inventions put together to achieve a desired feature.

Again; Biographies, Text & Reference Books (unless they have featured new Concepts or Theories in the book itself), even most of the Columns written, are again Collage of different theories written from different books and articles. Thus, as an analogy, maybe they are Innovation, but not Invention.  

Then what defines Originality?

Take this example. LOTR in Literature is Originality. Some great Sci-Fi movies define Originality. Animated Characters, Comics defines Originality. Absolute Fiction is Originality. Verses/Poetries are Originality. Likes of Hans Zimmer’s / Carnatic Music is Originality. Sculptures are Originality.  Because they didn’t prepare a Collage via assembling already written/defined segregated features, most of them already known, and as are unlike the above. Thus, here as an analogy, Invention takes over Innovation.

Thus, according to my theory, what is Copyrightable doesn’t necessary become Original. To be considered Original, it has to pass the litmus test of Invention. 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi