[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[Henning Schlottmann]

Anthony wrote:

> Most people have no clue what the term "derivative work" means, but I
> would assume that most people who do have a clue would agree that a
> newspaper article which contains both photos and text is a derivative
> work of both the photos and the text.

In my book (based on the German legal system) "derivative work" means a 
work that is based on the copy of another work, but neither identical to 
it, nor going so far beyond the input, that it can be considered 
completely new.

This is the definition of §23 UrhG and called "Bearbeitung" 
([[:de:Bearbeitung (Urheberrecht)]]

There are several legal terms in this sentence:

* work: a work is the product of original creativity with a intellectual 
merit beyond a certain threshold of triviality.

* copy: let's assume we all know about that one

* another work: a different work by the same or another creator

* based on, but not identical: If the other work is used as is as an 
identical copy, it cannot be a derivative work. This is the separation 
from an aggregation.

* completely new: This one is difficult to translate into the US legal 
system, but it might be explained as a certain aspect of the "fair 
use"-clause in US copyright.

My conclusion is that taking a stock photo and putting it next to a text 
  in order to illustrate the text, without intrinsic references between 
the two works, constitutes an aggregation, not a derivative work.

The act of merely combining existing text and existing illustration does 
not create an original work, as it stays way below the threshold of 
originality.

Do we have someone from other legal systems? Mike, would you like to 
comment?

Ciao Henning (global user name: H-stt, home project: de-WP)