Abstract
Originality is a long-established and fundamental condition for the protection of intellectual work in France and England. However, the Court of Cassation and the House of Lords have quite a different vision of this concept.
Indeed, the French courts consider that the originality of a work is established when it bears the 'imprint of the personality of its author'. English judges distinguish the originality of a work by more specific criteria: first, the work must not have been copied, and secondly, the author must have invested labor, skill and some effort in achieving it.
The doctrine has tended to oppose in a brutal way the 'droit d'auteur' of civil law countries and the 'copyright' of common law countries. Today, despite some apparent differences in practice, this legal gap is fading considerably.
Originality, pre-requisite for the protection of intellectual work in both systems, is at the heart of this debate. Indeed, the French jurists strongly criticize the English notion of 'originality' as being too permissive. It is easy to reach this conclusion when we focus on definitions given by the courts. Yet, when we study in detail the condition of originality, these differences seem no longer obvious.
