David Kastrup writes: > I have here a secondary literary work covering "Ulysses", consisting > pretty much exclusively of annotations. Where there are citations, they > are short enough not to count as copyrightable in itself. But it > certainly is a derivative work.
Under US law it may very well not be. David Kastrup writes: > I am just saying that the lack of direct verbatim inclusion of a > copyrightable amount of material is not a necessity in the explanation > for literary works, The inclusion of protected elements is. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
