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(a)free.fr> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:26:24 +0100, Jean-Baptiste
Soufron
<jbsoufron(a)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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org