[WikiEN-l] Is it true...

[Anthony]

On 12/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:54:03 -0500, "James Hare"
> <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Case in point: Captain Jean-Luc Picard(r).
>
> So a caricature of Picard would be forbidden?  Really?

A caricature of Picard would likely be a derivative work, since Picard
is a copyrighted character.  Of course, it would also likely fall
under fair use, as it would likely be a highly adaptive derivative
work with little potential impact on the original.

> I am honestly
> confused here.  What about, say, a painting of an aircraft?  Is that
> unfree by virtue of the manufacturer's rights, or the airline's logo?

A painting which incorporated a copyrighted logo would be copyrighted
as a derivative work.  If the use was so insignificant as to be fair
use/fair dealing in just about any jurisdiction, I'd still call it
free though.

> I have a friend who is a commercial artist, that is not an idle
> question.
>
Commercial artists rarely care about what is free/unfree, focussing
instead on what is legal/illegal.

Anthony