I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely.
There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not sure a consenus of
wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we
consult an expert?
On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, "Anthony" <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony
On what grounds is it out of copyright?
Doesn't a derivative work
carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed
by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting
material employed in the work")?
Read the deletion discussion.
I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not
address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only
the copyright on the derivative work.
Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and
a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo
Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II:
"The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed,
derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter
which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the
underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has
not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123,
1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919,
64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is "No"."
foundation-l mailing list