Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets > to exercise the right to control those works, and the owner > of each contribution gets to exercise the right to control > his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].) > > so he's certainly not as wrong as you are. I shouldn't be > surprised - as always, the things you quote contradict your > thesis.
You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_(House_Report_No._94-1476) ----- Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative work is copyrightable if it represents an original work of authorship and falls within one or more of the categories listed in section 102. Read together, the two sections make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter stated in section 102 apply with full force to works that are entirely original and to those containing preexisting material. Section 103(b) is also intended to define, more sharply and clearly than does section 7 of the present law, the important interrelationship and correlation between protection of preexisting and of new material in a particular work. The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a new version covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. Between them the terms compilations and derivative works which are defined in section 101, comprehend every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically represent different concepts. A compilation results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright. A derivative work, on the other hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting one or more preexisting works; the preexisting work must come within the general subject matter of copyright set forth in section 102, regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted. The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully, the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. ----- It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. Got it now, silly Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss