> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Brad Thompson
> This particular section was used in the basis of the ruling > for Anderson V. Stallone, where the court ruled that a > fictional work that contained the Rocky character was in fact > the joint property of both Anderson and Stallone I'll just interject here to say that my reading of the judgement in the case is that the court rejected outright Anderson's claim of copyright >period<, and essentially (though not in so many words) told Anderson that Stallone owned his script, because it was wholly derivative of Stallone's copyright. I have yet to find a case where a court found that a derivative work was comprised of two copyrights; all the cases I've examined seem to use a doctrine of saying that the copyright of the derivative work vests in the owner of the original work. The law clearly establishes a precedent for a mixed-rights work, but I haven't found any cases that examine the issue in detail. The courts seem to be unwilling to "parse" the copyright in a work and prefer an all-or-nothing solution. Ryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
