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