in the standard for originality. In the United States, originality necessitates bare minimum degree of creativity and independent creation. The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. held that the work must be independently created and must possess minimum degree of creativity. This interpretation requires an extremely low level of creativity and in the words of the court, “must possess some creative spark no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be.” The court also took the opportunity to reject the previously judicially-established and followed the sweat of the brow doctrine. According to the said doctrine, labour and hard-work alone could suffice to establish originality. After the doctrine was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1991, in the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case, the court held that the copies of public domain photographs could not be copyrighted since they lacked originality and while such reproductions may have involved skill and labour, no protection could be granted to them, on account of lack of originality. While the current legal requirements of originality viz. minimum level of creativity and independent labour can be easily assessed and applied in case of literary works, the courts are required to undertake a deeper legal and factual inquiry in photographic works. The United States District Court for Southern District of New York in Mannion v. Coors Brewing Company considered originality in terms of timing, subject and rendition, and held that the nature and extent of the copyright would be independent in the three aspects. The requirement for originality was incorporated in the statute only in the Copyright Act, 1976 and over the course of time, the courts have evolved various metrics to apply the test. Unlike, Patents, novelty is not required for a work to be considered as original. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Sheldon (1936) had clarified that sometimes it is relevant for other purposes. Therefore, if the work created by you is identical to a pre-existing work but you are unaware of the latter's existence, you may still enjoy copyright protection for your work. Apart from novelty, the work is not required to be made with an intent to be original. What is considered is only that it is actually an independent creation in effect. In 1951, the court in Alfred Bell Co. v. Catalda