Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every >> copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a >> distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of >> derivative works from the rights of a collective (anthology) work. I >> have said it before, but I will repeat: > > You aren't thinking about enough edge cases. For example, let's say > I take a short story A. I have nine authors write nine variations > of it and publish a collection of these ten works. The whole book > is a derivative work of A. It is also a collective of A_i.
Why is the whole book a derivative work of A? The book is a compilation of A_i, each of which is a derivative work of A. Copyright law requires those nine authors to have permission from A's author before they can create their stories. Copyright law does not require separate permission before the nine can reproduce, publically perform, etc their derivative works[1]: such restrictions must be embodied in the grants from A's author. If the grants allow distribution of the derivative works in a compilation, A's author cannot decide that the book infringes his copyright. [1]- See 17 USC 106, "Exclusive rights in copyrighted works," at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html Michael
