翻译一个有趣的故事The court determined that the original piano-vocal

翻译一个有趣的故事The court determined that the original piano-vocal version registered by Irving Berlin with the copyright office did not constitute a derivative work. As such, the court found that any "independent creation distinguishing the lead sheet from the piano-vocal arrangement was attributable to Woods before he sold the Song to Berlin." Factually, expert testimony established that any variations in the piano-vocal version were "insubstantial." The court con-cluded that Berlin's arrangement was effectively Woods's original composition before Berlin received rights to the work. This finding proved significant because Bourne's contention rested on the premise that Berlin's version constituted a separately copyrightable arrangement. If Berlin's version had constituted a derivative work, Bourne, as Berlin's successor in copyright, would have retained performance and royalty rights to that particular version. Having decided that Berlin owned the copyright to Woods's original composition, the court looked to Bourne's 1981 arrangement of the song and its bass-line variation in order to determine whether it could constitute a copyright-able derivative work. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the arrangement "'in no way exhibit the degree of creativity required to make it a derivative work.'" Thus, the court found that, notwith-standing the non-derivative nature of Berlin's work, none of Bourne's arrangements rose to the level of independently protected derivative works.