There is a lot of misunderstanding here as to what
constitutes a
derivative
work. But one need only look at Galoob v. Nintendo to dispel most of
it:
"The examples of derivative works provided by the Act all physically
incorporate the underlying work or works. The Act's legislative history
similarly indicates that 'the infringing work must incorporate a
portion of
the copyrighted work in some form.'"
The infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work
in
some form. This might be the storyline, as in the case of fan
fiction, but
if there is no incoporation of the copyrighted work in the alleged
infringing work, then there is no case, and a jury wouldn't even hear
the
case because it would be dismissed by a judge before a jury was even
selected.
Oh yeah, and by the way, the Database and Collections of Information
Misappropriation Act of 2003 never passed, and phone books are
generally
*not* subject to copyright.
Thank you.
To be more precise, phonebooks can be protected. In Europe they are
protected under the database protection act from 1997 (or 1999?).
Nothing in the US ?
Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts