Question

跪求大神帮忙翻译一段英文短句啊,不要机翻啊,谢谢了

The intention was to grant copyright protection for aesthetic elements of a piece of applied art,but not to the functional or mechanical features that properly are the subject matter of patnet law,especially design patent law.
Drawing this distinction has been remarkably difficult,and it is often hard to find much to distinguish cases where courts have concluded the works are protected by copyright and those that are denied protection under the useful artcle doctrine.

Answer 1

The intention was to grant copyright protection for aesthetic elements of a piece of applied art,but not to the functional or mechanical features that properly are the subject matter of patnet law,especially design patent law.
目的是给予一个应用艺术审美元素的版权保护，但不正确的是专利法的主题功能或机械的特点，尤其是外观设计专利法。

Drawing this distinction has been remarkably difficult,and it is often hard to find much to distinguish cases where courts have concluded the works are protected by copyright and those that are denied protection under the useful artcle doctrine.
这种区别已经非常困难，而且经常是很难找到太多分辨的情况下，法院已审结的作品受版权和那些否认保护原则下保护有用的文章。

追问

第二段你翻译的看不太懂啊...

追答

画这一区别是非常困难的,它往往是很难找到区分的情况下,法院已经得出了作品受版权保护和那些否认保护有用的教义。
或者：绘制这种区别已非常困难，并常常很难找到太大区别地方法院的结论作品均受版权和那些被剥夺保护下有用中华人民共和国学说的情况。
好像都看不太懂……我尽力吧……