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

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron]

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:26:24 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> <jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
>> That's not what they said. They don't link the exclusion of copyright
>> infringement to the fact that you must use the item with the original
>> work. That's just a description of the way it works and it has nothing
>> to do with obiter dictum in this case.
>
> No, it's another argument in the case as to why the game genie isn't
> create a derrivitive work.  If you take the part Anthony quoted out of
> context you'd think that you actually had to have some of the
> copyrighted text in order to be violating.. But this is clearly not
> the case because there have been cases where not a single word of the
> orignal work was taken  (see the superman/wonderman case, or the
> fanfic case)... Sure, *ideas* were taken, but you keep arguing that
> copyright is still bound to a specific embodyment of an idea, and that
> is clearly not the case anymore.

These cases are "dramatization" works, arent' they ?

A fanfic is an adaptation.

An article is not an adaptation but a combination of different works.

>
>>> "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
>>> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
>>> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
>>> reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
>>> work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
>>> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other 
>>> modifications
>>> which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
>>> "derivative work". ( 17 U.S.C. §101)
>>>
> [snip]
>> Being inspired is authorized !
>
> Sure is... however, making a new work via "revisions, annotations,
> elaborations, or other modifications"  produces a derivative work.

But these revisions, annotations, elaborations or others are original 
piece of works. You still have one derivative work and 2 original works 
(minimum) : "which, as a whole, represent an original work of 
authorship"

>
>> What is not is to base your work upon a preexisting one. The second
>> part of 17 U.S.C simply means that the article A+B+C is a derivative
>> work and that A, B and C are original works as a whole.
>
> We'll assume that X is the copyrighted work, and through revision, etc
> you create original Y.  Work Y is a derrivitive work. Y containing X
> any more appears to be immaterial since Y was made by modifying X.   I
> don't see how seperating Y into A+B+C makes A,B,C any less infringing
> so long as they can be shown to have been created via "revisions,
> annotations, elaborations, or other modifications"

Because they are not derivative works. The combination of them is a 
derivative work but each of them is an original work.

>
>> It's not. Every addition is an original work and the article is a
>> derivative work.
>>
>>>
>>> There is a huge amount of case law that would appear to support the
>>> bulk of wikipedia's activities at face value, for example the classic
>>> "Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc."  but which
>>> completely fail to cover the case where the proof derivative work
>>> status is so easy made by the existence of the revision history.
>>
>> There is not need to proof anything. It's case law : I can find cases
>> in any contradictory sense you want. There is even a french girl who
>> completely plagiarized "Gone With The Wind" but was ruled free of
>> charges... ("la bicyclette bleue" for my fellow french companions)
>
> I'm specifically concerned with US caselaw as we're at the forfront of
> eroding rights on these matters. I said in my first post that it's
> likely the the law in other countries is more sane.  Even in the "la
> bicyclette bleue" case the final decision was an appeal, the orignal
> decision was that it infringed.

Of course since it was a complete plagiat...

> The appealat court made decided that
> in abscence of the evidence of it being directly derrived from the
> other work the differences were substantial enough to judge it as an
> entirely different work.

Sure but nobody were able to understand the criterias of substantial 
difference. The reality is that this case is misdjudged. It's an error.