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

[Anthony DiPierro]

>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.

You're missing the phrase "in some form".  Copyright does not cover only
text.  Copyright covers the story itself, and in some cases has been ruled
to cover even the characters.  And as was said earlier, you can't copyright
non-fictional characters.

Another way to look at it, copyright law only covers *preparation* of
derivative works, not copying or distribution of derivative works.  It
doesn't have to cover the latter, because when you copy a derivative work
you necessarily also copy the original work on which it is derived.

http://chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi ("the infringing work must
incorporate some portion of the original work", "For example, a detailed
commentary on a work or a musical composition inspired by a book would not
usually constitute infringements of this right.")

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html "There is no
hard-and-fast rule determining when something is a substantially similar
copy, and when it is a derivative work, since both will incorporate the
original work in some way and also have changed material."

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html
"Nintendo sued, claiming that when the Game Genie modified the game system's
audiovisual display, it created an infringing derivative work. We rejected
this claim because 'derivative work must incorporate a protected work in
some concrete or permanent form.'"

Yes, the key for Nintendo was that the display was not in concrete or
permanent form, but that doesn't change the fact that the derivative work
must incorporate a protected work in some form the first place.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/