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

[Ray Saintonge]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:03:06 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
><jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>
Cite cases please.

>Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection. 
>This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the
>definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
>
>Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction
>since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not,
>but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good
>argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
>
Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible.  You seem to ignore the 
fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not the 
ideas themselves.  It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage 
is more frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the 
degree of copyright violation diminishes.

>Copyright law in the US needs to be reformed,  but the current trends
>are not heading in the right direction yet.
>
Certainly it needs reform.  Requested submissions about what can be done 
to make orphan works more accessible are due this Friday.  Are you 
making a submission?

Ec