> rather that minimal copying does not justify a new copyright The quoted opinion from the case specially has minimal copying as some examples such as making a

> rather that minimal copying does not justify a new copyright The quoted opinion from the case specially has minimal copying as some examples such as making a copy of a cartoon to post on the refrigerator: > The de minimis doctrine is rarely discussed in copyright opinions because suits are rarely brought over trivial instances of copying. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of the law of copyright. Trivial copying is a significant part of modern life. Most honest citizens in the modern world frequently engage, without hesitation, in trivial copying that, but for the de minimis doctrine, would technically constitute a violation of law. We do not hesitate to make a photocopy of a letter from a friend to show to another friend, or of a favorite cartoon to post on the refrigerator. ... When we do such things, it is not that we are breaking the law but unlikely to be sued given the high cost of litigation. Because of the de minimis doctrine, in trivial instances of copying, we are in fact not breaking the law. If a copyright owner were to sue the makers of trivial copies, judgment would be for the defendants. The case would be dismissed because trivial copying is not an infringement. On Davis v. Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 173 (2d Cir. 2001) ( https://casetext.com/case/on-davis-v-the-gap-inc https://casetext.com/case/on-davis-v-the-gap-inc ) Schools and daycare with copies of the work likely rise above the trivial copying of putting it on your refrigerator.