[Wikipedia-l] derivative works (Galoob v. Nintendo)

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron]

> There is a lot of misunderstanding here as to what constitutes a 
> derivative
> work.  But one need only look at Galoob v. Nintendo to dispel most of 
> it:
>
> "The examples of derivative works provided by the Act all physically
> incorporate the underlying work or works. The Act's legislative history
> similarly indicates that 'the infringing work must incorporate a 
> portion of
> the copyrighted work in some form.'"
>
> The infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work 
> in
> some form.  This might be the storyline, as in the case of fan 
> fiction, but
> if there is no incoporation of the copyrighted work in the alleged
> infringing work, then there is no case, and a jury wouldn't even hear 
> the
> case because it would be dismissed by a judge before a jury was even
> selected.
>
> Oh yeah, and by the way,  the Database and Collections of Information
> Misappropriation Act of 2003 never passed, and phone books are 
> generally
> *not* subject to copyright.

Thank you.

To be more precise, phonebooks can be protected. In Europe they are 
protected under the database protection act from 1997 (or 1999?). 
Nothing in the US ?

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts