David Kastrup wrote: [...] > There have been cases where secondary literature, or spinoffs or > continuations have been prohibited on the base of copyright laws.
Only when those "secondary literature, or spinoffs or continuations" were judged to contain protected expression such as the plot, characters, etc. taken from the base work, silly. http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/AlphaBrief.pdf "Another limitation designed to curtail the expansive definition of derivative works is the incorporation requirement. Specifically, [a] derivative work must incorporate a protected work in some concrete or permanent form. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 964 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 1992)(internal quotations omitted); see also, Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1292 (11th Cir. 1999); Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772, 788 (5th Cir. 1999). In the realm of computer software, an important aspect of this limitation is the basic principle that the functional elements of a work are not protected by copyright law. Computer Assocs. Int'l v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 714 (2d. Cir. 1992). The District Court correctly found that any substantial similarity between Connector and Database Manager 2.0 involves purely functional elements. Therefore, Connector does not and cannot satisfy the incorporation requirement, because Galoob requires the incorporation of protected expression. Accordingly, the fact that Connector incorporates no protected expression from Database Manager 2.0 eliminates the possibility that Connector constitutes a derivative work. 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." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656426.html "FormGen here alleges direct infringement by Micro Star, because the MAP files encompass new Duke stories, which are themselves derivative works. ... Micro Star misconstrues the protected work. The work that Micro Star infringes is the D/N-3D story itself--a 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 Duke's fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason, even if it contained no pictures. " regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
