Part A: Historian, sifting through thousands of old documents purchased from a scrap paper dealer, finds a long-lost letter.The letter is covered in grime, making it impossible to read.Nevertheless, Historian imaginatively identifies it as potentially valuable,relying on various subtle clues and her own rich experience.Using great care and skill, Historian spends days cleaning the letter and restoring its colors.The handwriting is atrocious and idiosyncratic.Historian nevertheless manages to decipher its, using creative powers of reasoning, together with lots of research.The letter is anonymous but evidently was written around 1965.The letter describes life in the 1960s in Seattle, with many evocative details and creative turns of phrase.Historian types up the text of the letter to make it easy for others to read.Historian claims copyright in the letter.If the purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive for the distribution of works, Historian argues, then she is entitled to copyright in the letter.Otherwise, she may turn her hand to writing trashy historical novels.Do you think she has a copyright in the letter?

Part B:.Suppose Historian decides to make a photograph of the letter for archival purposes.She carefully positions several lights so that every facet of the letter is shown in the photograph.She also chooses a level of lighting that, together with a colored filter on her camera, lends a somber mood to the picture.Does her photograph meet the requirements of originality?