On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:50:42 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0500, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Not because they have been 'contaminated' with the original text once,
but because they are using characters, situations, etcetera from a
copyrighted text. When someone starts claiming copyright on
characters, events etcetera from non-fiction texts Wikipedia can stop
working anyway.
I guess we should turn off the servers now:
Please see the "Database and Collections of Information
Misappropriation Act of 2003"
(
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html).
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....
So I guess I should never use a copyrighted book to get my information
for Wikipedia either?
Copyright has also been extended to collections of public information
(phone books, etc). If you refer to a copyrighted list to produce a
"list of eagle scouts" you are indeed in violation of the law.
Without the history feature in wikipedia, it would be very difficult
to prove you copied the information without a verbatim copy, so such
prosecutions are rare (although they do occur). Revision history
makes showing the taxonomy of a segment of text trivial.
The current political culture in the US is one that rejects the
importance of the public domain, you would be hard pressed to win a
'grey matter' case in court as things stand today. (For example see
eldridge vs ashcroft)