Definition
In intellectual property law, originality is the threshold quality a work or invention must possess to qualify for legal protection. The term operates differently across patent and copyright law, and the distinction matters.
In copyright law, originality requires that a work be independently created by the author (not copied from another) and that it possess at least a minimal degree of creativity. The standard is deliberately low — it does not demand novelty in the patent-law sense, nor artistic merit. A work can be original even if it closely resembles other works, provided the similarity results from independent creation rather than copying.
In patent law, the concept of originality historically addressed the requirement that the inventor actually be the true creator of the claimed invention — that the invention be found, contrived, or created by the applicant, rather than derived from the work of another. Modern patent doctrine has largely displaced this usage with the separate requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, but the underlying idea (that the claimed inventor must genuinely be the source of the invention) persists in inventorship doctrine.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The quality of being original or novel; the capacity to think independently or be inventive.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The quality or state of being original.
The common meaning conflates originality with novelty — something is "original" in everyday speech if it is new, fresh, or unlike what came before. Copyright law deliberately severs this connection. A work can be legally original without being novel: two photographers who independently take identical photographs on the same day both produce legally original works, even though neither is "new" relative to the other. Researchers importing the common meaning of originality into copyright analysis will systematically misread both doctrine and historical commentary on the subject.
---
Common Confusion
Originality vs. Novelty: These terms are often used interchangeably in common speech but describe different legal standards. In patent law, novelty requires that the invention not previously exist in the prior art — an objective comparison against the external world. Originality (or true inventorship) asks whether this particular applicant actually created the claimed invention. In copyright law, originality asks only whether the work was independently created with minimal creativity; novelty is irrelevant entirely. A researcher encountering "originality" in patent materials should verify whether the source is using the term in its historical patent sense (true inventorship) or conflating it with novelty.
Originality vs. Originalism: Unrelated concepts sharing a root. Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation; originality is a prerequisite for intellectual property protection. The overlap in terminology has produced careless conflations in non-specialist writing.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The word "originality" carries different doctrinal weight depending on the IP field and the period of the source. Researchers working in copyright law should be alert to the fact that the modern low-creativity standard — established and named as such in U.S. doctrine — postdates most of the historical legal dictionaries. Bouvier's entry addresses originality exclusively through the patent lens, reflecting the relative underdevelopment of copyright doctrine at the time of writing. Historical legal dictionary treatments of originality will therefore be of limited value for copyright research and can actively mislead if read without this context.
In patent materials, Bouvier's framing — originality as "finding out, contriving, creating" something not previously known — corresponds to what modern doctrine calls inventorship and, partially, novelty. Researchers using historical patent treatises will find "originality" deployed broadly to cover both the subjective question (did this person invent it?) and the objective question (did it exist before?). Modern doctrine has separated these inquiries, so direct mapping from historical sources to current categories requires care.
For constitutional law researchers, the term "original meaning" or "originalist" interpretation may surface in proximity to discussions of intellectual property clauses. These uses are not connected to the IP doctrine of originality and should not be cross-referenced as though they were.
The corpus connection between originality and employment discrimination (national origin) is terminological only — no doctrinal relationship exists.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines originality entirely within patent law as "the finding out, the contriving, the creating of something which did not exist and was not known before, and which can be made useful and advantageous in the pursuits of life." This definition blends what modern doctrine treats as distinct requirements: inventorship (the person must have actually created it), novelty (it did not previously exist), and utility (it must be useful). Bouvier cites 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 16, a real patent case report from Fisher's Patent Cases.
The absence of any copyright treatment in Bouvier is itself historically informative: at the time of writing, copyright doctrine had not developed a robust, self-standing concept of originality as a threshold requirement with its own name and contours. The modern copyright standard emerged through judicial elaboration over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Historical dictionaries across the shelf largely follow Bouvier's patent-centric framing, and none adequately anticipates the copyright doctrine that would later become the primary context in which "originality" is litigated and discussed.
---
Jurisdictional Note
In U.S. copyright law, the originality standard is federal and constitutionally grounded in the Copyright Clause. Common law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries, have applied varying formulations — some closer to a "skill and labour" standard (lower creativity threshold) rather than the independent-creation-plus-minimal-creativity approach. Researchers using comparative or international sources should not assume uniform treatment of the term.
---