Compare and contrast these two quotes in a news.com article.

First:

“People kind of forget that we have a lot of our own copyrights to protect and that copyright law is a big part of that protection,” said Alexander Macgillivray, a lawyer at Google. “We’re a search engine that exists and knows it exists only because of the tremendous impact of creators.”

Second:

Google’s attorneys responded by questioning whether Field’s stories should enjoy the highest degree of copyright protection. The stories are “minimally creative works,” represent “simply” Field’s “ramblings” and “are certainly not works that are deserving of any enhanced protection,” Google said. Its attorneys added that Field had “spent only three days” writing the stories.

Ramblings don’t deserve protection? Only three days? Is one condition enough (a philosophical treatise often rambles, but takes forever to write, while poems can be written quickly without a ramble) or do you need both? Where do folks come up with these rules?

To a large extent, Google was required to make that argument because of the way the litigation process works.

[…]

Google made the same argument in its ongoing lawsuit with Perfect 10, claiming the Web site’s high-quality nude images were not especially creative because its site “implies a factual nature of the photographs.”

Even some copyright scholars who are generally sympathetic to Google and the technology industry say that was a bit of a stretch.

And it looks like things are just getting started…

Digital rights advocate Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology lobby groups are siding with Google. The Motion Picture Association of America and the American Society of Media Photographers are filing friend-of-the-court briefs aligning themselves with Perfect 10. Oral arguments are expected early next year.