You are not addressing my point. I did not say "reject" statute law. My point is that we cannot add interpretations to statute law except based on case law. Many if not most questions about copyright, like this one, are not specifically addressed in statute law. It is rather case law that is interpreting what "published" means, what "product" means, what "derivative" means, and so on. So we cannot address the question of whether trailers are the same or a different product, since this is not addressed directly in statute law, but only addressed or partially addressed in case law. In that case, I would lean toward adding no additional interpretations on our part, and letting the case law determine the situation. In a message dated 9/8/2008 11:30:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geniice(a)gmail.com writes: Most life+whatever laws have not technically been tested so rejecting statute law until we have some case law isn't practical. **************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)