On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:50:42 +0100, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0500, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but have still been ruled to be derived works.
Not because they have been 'contaminated' with the original text once, but because they are using characters, situations, etcetera from a copyrighted text. When someone starts claiming copyright on characters, events etcetera from non-fiction texts Wikipedia can stop working anyway.
I guess we should turn off the servers now:
Please see the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act of 2003" (http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html).
Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection. This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
So I guess I should never use a copyrighted book to get my information for Wikipedia either?
Copyright has also been extended to collections of public information (phone books, etc). If you refer to a copyrighted list to produce a "list of eagle scouts" you are indeed in violation of the law. Without the history feature in wikipedia, it would be very difficult to prove you copied the information without a verbatim copy, so such prosecutions are rare (although they do occur). Revision history makes showing the taxonomy of a segment of text trivial.
The current political culture in the US is one that rejects the importance of the public domain, you would be hard pressed to win a 'grey matter' case in court as things stand today. (For example see eldridge vs ashcroft)