David Kastrup wrote: [...] > The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to > interoperate with other fiction (namely, using the same > setting/worldview and characters).
Dak, dak, dak. http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/AlphaBrief.pdf ------- Omega will argue that our case is more analogous to Micro Star v. Formgen, 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998), as opposed to Galoob. In Formgen, defendants MAP files created new levels for plaintiffs video game and were found to be derivative works of the original game. Id. at 1112. However, analogizing Connector to the MAP files in Formgen is inappropriate. First, it is important to note that the infringed preexisting work in Formgen was the story of plaintiffs original game. Id. The court found that defendants MAP files described new stories that were based upon plaintiffs original story, and so the MAP files were deemed to be sequels that incorporated plaintiffs preexisting protected story. Id. at 1111-1112. As such, although the MAP files contained no computer code from plaintiffs preexisting work, the MAP files incorporated copyrightable elements of plaintiffs story and were therefore considered derivative works. Id. at 1112. In contrast to the video games at issue in Formgen, neither Database Manager 2.0 nor Connector contain a copyrightable story. Connector consists of literal computer code that invokes the functionality provided by Database Manager 2.0, and in no way describes Database Manager 2.0. Analogizing Database Manager 2.0 to a story, and Connector to a sequel, is inappropriate. Connector incorporates no copyrightable elements from Database Manager 2.0, whether literal or non-literal. As such, Connector should not be considered a derivative work under the Copyright Act. ------- Don't miss http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/MootFacts.pdf http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/OmegaBrief.pdf http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/media/04.%20Beyond%20the%20Basics%20-%20Patent%20Law.mp3 as well. More on Micro Star and Duke Nukem: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656426.html ------- Micro Star further argues that the MAP files are not derivative works because they do not, in fact, incorporate any of D/N-3Ds protected expression. In particular, Micro Star makes much of the fact that the N/I MAP files reference the source art library, but do not actually contain any art files themselves. Therefore, it claims, nothing of D/N-3Ds is reproduced in the MAP files. In making this argument, Micro Star misconstrues the protected work. The work that Micro Star infringes is the D/N-3D story itselfa beefy commando type named Duke who wanders around post-Apocalypse Los Angeles, shooting Pig Cops with a gun, lobbing hand grenades, searching for medkits and steroids, using a jetpack to leap over obstacles, blowing up gas tanks, avoiding radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create sequels, see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740 (11th Cir. 1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely sequels, telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Dukes fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason, even if it contained no pictures. ------- regards, alexander. -- "Copyright license -> Copyright law Contract -> Contract law DUH!" -- mini-RMS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
