On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:26:24 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
That's not what they said. They don't link the exclusion of copyright infringement to the fact that you must use the item with the original work. That's just a description of the way it works and it has nothing to do with obiter dictum in this case.
No, it's another argument in the case as to why the game genie isn't create a derrivitive work. If you take the part Anthony quoted out of context you'd think that you actually had to have some of the copyrighted text in order to be violating.. But this is clearly not the case because there have been cases where not a single word of the orignal work was taken (see the superman/wonderman case, or the fanfic case)... Sure, *ideas* were taken, but you keep arguing that copyright is still bound to a specific embodyment of an idea, and that is clearly not the case anymore.
These cases are "dramatization" works, arent' they ?
A fanfic is an adaptation.
An article is not an adaptation but a combination of different works.
"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". ( 17 U.S.C. §101)
[snip]
Being inspired is authorized !
Sure is... however, making a new work via "revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications" produces a derivative work.
But these revisions, annotations, elaborations or others are original piece of works. You still have one derivative work and 2 original works (minimum) : "which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship"
What is not is to base your work upon a preexisting one. The second part of 17 U.S.C simply means that the article A+B+C is a derivative work and that A, B and C are original works as a whole.
We'll assume that X is the copyrighted work, and through revision, etc you create original Y. Work Y is a derrivitive work. Y containing X any more appears to be immaterial since Y was made by modifying X. I don't see how seperating Y into A+B+C makes A,B,C any less infringing so long as they can be shown to have been created via "revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications"
Because they are not derivative works. The combination of them is a derivative work but each of them is an original work.
It's not. Every addition is an original work and the article is a derivative work.
There is a huge amount of case law that would appear to support the bulk of wikipedia's activities at face value, for example the classic "Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc." but which completely fail to cover the case where the proof derivative work status is so easy made by the existence of the revision history.
There is not need to proof anything. It's case law : I can find cases in any contradictory sense you want. There is even a french girl who completely plagiarized "Gone With The Wind" but was ruled free of charges... ("la bicyclette bleue" for my fellow french companions)
I'm specifically concerned with US caselaw as we're at the forfront of eroding rights on these matters. I said in my first post that it's likely the the law in other countries is more sane. Even in the "la bicyclette bleue" case the final decision was an appeal, the orignal decision was that it infringed.
Of course since it was a complete plagiat...
The appealat court made decided that in abscence of the evidence of it being directly derrived from the other work the differences were substantial enough to judge it as an entirely different work.
Sure but nobody were able to understand the criterias of substantial difference. The reality is that this case is misdjudged. It's an error.
I don't think it was misjudged. Clearly, the appelate court's ruling was anything but unintentional, and they gave as reason for their ruling the absence of evidences and "substantial" differences.
Mark
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:54:28 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:26:24 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
That's not what they said. They don't link the exclusion of copyright infringement to the fact that you must use the item with the original work. That's just a description of the way it works and it has nothing to do with obiter dictum in this case.
No, it's another argument in the case as to why the game genie isn't create a derrivitive work. If you take the part Anthony quoted out of context you'd think that you actually had to have some of the copyrighted text in order to be violating.. But this is clearly not the case because there have been cases where not a single word of the orignal work was taken (see the superman/wonderman case, or the fanfic case)... Sure, *ideas* were taken, but you keep arguing that copyright is still bound to a specific embodyment of an idea, and that is clearly not the case anymore.
These cases are "dramatization" works, arent' they ?
A fanfic is an adaptation.
An article is not an adaptation but a combination of different works.
"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". ( 17 U.S.C. §101)
[snip]
Being inspired is authorized !
Sure is... however, making a new work via "revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications" produces a derivative work.
But these revisions, annotations, elaborations or others are original piece of works. You still have one derivative work and 2 original works (minimum) : "which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship"
What is not is to base your work upon a preexisting one. The second part of 17 U.S.C simply means that the article A+B+C is a derivative work and that A, B and C are original works as a whole.
We'll assume that X is the copyrighted work, and through revision, etc you create original Y. Work Y is a derrivitive work. Y containing X any more appears to be immaterial since Y was made by modifying X. I don't see how seperating Y into A+B+C makes A,B,C any less infringing so long as they can be shown to have been created via "revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications"
Because they are not derivative works. The combination of them is a derivative work but each of them is an original work.
It's not. Every addition is an original work and the article is a derivative work.
There is a huge amount of case law that would appear to support the bulk of wikipedia's activities at face value, for example the classic "Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc." but which completely fail to cover the case where the proof derivative work status is so easy made by the existence of the revision history.
There is not need to proof anything. It's case law : I can find cases in any contradictory sense you want. There is even a french girl who completely plagiarized "Gone With The Wind" but was ruled free of charges... ("la bicyclette bleue" for my fellow french companions)
I'm specifically concerned with US caselaw as we're at the forfront of eroding rights on these matters. I said in my first post that it's likely the the law in other countries is more sane. Even in the "la bicyclette bleue" case the final decision was an appeal, the orignal decision was that it infringed.
Of course since it was a complete plagiat...
The appealat court made decided that in abscence of the evidence of it being directly derrived from the other work the differences were substantial enough to judge it as an entirely different work.
Sure but nobody were able to understand the criterias of substantial difference. The reality is that this case is misdjudged. It's an error.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Well read the book and find the "substantial" differences :)
Plus, this decision was not really followed by other Judges and Courts.
Le 21 mars 05, à 04:03, Mark Williamson a écrit :
I don't think it was misjudged. Clearly, the appelate court's ruling was anything but unintentional, and they gave as reason for their ruling the absence of evidences and "substantial" differences.
Mark
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:54:28 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:26:24 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
That's not what they said. They don't link the exclusion of copyright infringement to the fact that you must use the item with the original work. That's just a description of the way it works and it has nothing to do with obiter dictum in this case.
No, it's another argument in the case as to why the game genie isn't create a derrivitive work. If you take the part Anthony quoted out of context you'd think that you actually had to have some of the copyrighted text in order to be violating.. But this is clearly not the case because there have been cases where not a single word of the orignal work was taken (see the superman/wonderman case, or the fanfic case)... Sure, *ideas* were taken, but you keep arguing that copyright is still bound to a specific embodyment of an idea, and that is clearly not the case anymore.
These cases are "dramatization" works, arent' they ?
A fanfic is an adaptation.
An article is not an adaptation but a combination of different works.
"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". ( 17 U.S.C. §101)
[snip]
Being inspired is authorized !
Sure is... however, making a new work via "revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications" produces a derivative work.
But these revisions, annotations, elaborations or others are original piece of works. You still have one derivative work and 2 original works (minimum) : "which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship"
What is not is to base your work upon a preexisting one. The second part of 17 U.S.C simply means that the article A+B+C is a derivative work and that A, B and C are original works as a whole.
We'll assume that X is the copyrighted work, and through revision, etc you create original Y. Work Y is a derrivitive work. Y containing X any more appears to be immaterial since Y was made by modifying X. I don't see how seperating Y into A+B+C makes A,B,C any less infringing so long as they can be shown to have been created via "revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications"
Because they are not derivative works. The combination of them is a derivative work but each of them is an original work.
It's not. Every addition is an original work and the article is a derivative work.
There is a huge amount of case law that would appear to support the bulk of wikipedia's activities at face value, for example the classic "Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc." but which completely fail to cover the case where the proof derivative work status is so easy made by the existence of the revision history.
There is not need to proof anything. It's case law : I can find cases in any contradictory sense you want. There is even a french girl who completely plagiarized "Gone With The Wind" but was ruled free of charges... ("la bicyclette bleue" for my fellow french companions)
I'm specifically concerned with US caselaw as we're at the forfront of eroding rights on these matters. I said in my first post that it's likely the the law in other countries is more sane. Even in the "la bicyclette bleue" case the final decision was an appeal, the orignal decision was that it infringed.
Of course since it was a complete plagiat...
The appealat court made decided that in abscence of the evidence of it being directly derrived from the other work the differences were substantial enough to judge it as an entirely different work.
Sure but nobody were able to understand the criterias of substantial difference. The reality is that this case is misdjudged. It's an error.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org