In a message dated 9/17/2008 5:30:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mark(a)formonelane.net writes:
There was a case about two years ago --- my, how time flies! --- where a
Wikipedian had written a mutli-sub-page retelling of the story of 2001: A Space
Oddysey, interspersed with analysis of the film's themes and the significance
of its special effects. Not only did it go into incredible depth of
analysis, it also re-told the entire story (quoting every line of dialogue,
describing of every action). There was nothing (apart from the spectacle of
Kubrick's direction, of course) that could be gained from watching the film that one
wouldn't also get from reading the articles.
*That's* a copyright infringement.>>
--------------------------
Yes and no. "quoting every line of dialogue" of course *copies* the script.
The script itself is a copyrightable item, independently of the film and is
so copyright just by virtue of its existence in tangible media. I'm sure
everyone agrees with that.
It's your opinion that this multi-sub-page analysis was a copyright
infringement, but there is a wide exception to "copying in its entirely" at
least
under US Copyright Law, if the purpose and actual result is a critique of that
work. Personally I would not suggest people try to exercise that particular
part of US Copyright Law, as it's almost always entirely unnecessary to copy
the *entire* script merely to critique it. However, for example, with images,
you almost always need to present the entire image in order to
satisfactorily acquaint your audience with it, in order to present your criticism.
Will Johnson
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at
StyleList.com.
(
http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)