[Wikipedia-l] no need to remove the article nor the chapter

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron]

>
>> You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived
>> work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.
>
> Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of
> fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but
> have still been ruled to be derived works.

A Fan Fiction is a completely different problem since it will re-use 
characters, plot, etc.

A Fan Fiction is a derivative work without being a copy of the original 
work. It is an adaptation.

>
> Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection.

Since they are only starting to fall under copyright protection, that 
also mean they did not fall yet !

Copyright law still has limits and we can use very easily use these 
limits. Not doing so would be a criminal attitude and a renouncement to 
the values that we are fighting for every day.

> This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the
> definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....

Translation have always been recognized as derivative works ! Just as 
well as movies adaptated from books, fanfictions and so on.

We are talking about : (1) the transformation of a text by modifying it 
word by word, (2) the inspiration from a text.

If Wikipedia must set up a policy, I am pretty sure it is better to 
base it on actual copyright law rather than on some mystic 
"what-copyright-could-be".

> Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction

Fan fiction are a completely different problem.

> since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not,

It's not that much.

> but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good
> argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
>
> Copyright law in the US needs to be reformed,

No, it need to be applied in a better way.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts