[WikiEN-l] Are movie trailers "free enough" for Commons?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

You are not addressing my point.  I did not say "reject" statute  law.  My 
point is that we cannot add interpretations to statute law except  based on case 
law.  Many if not most questions about copyright, like this  one, are not 
specifically addressed in statute law.  It is rather case law  that is 
interpreting what "published" means, what "product" means, what  "derivative" means, and 
so on.
 
So we cannot address the question of whether trailers are the same or a  
different product, since this is not addressed directly in statute law, but only  
addressed or partially addressed in case law.
 
In that case, I would lean toward adding no additional interpretations on  
our part, and letting the case law determine the situation.
 
 
In a message dated 9/8/2008 11:30:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
geniice at gmail.com writes:

Most  life+whatever laws have not technically been tested so rejecting
statute  law until we have some case law isn't  practical.




**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, 
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)