On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:06:27 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:13:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> If I take copyrighted proprietary software and link it with
>>> copyrighted GPL'ed software, who can give me permission to distribute
>>> the result?
>> 
>> Clearly nobody, because linking proprietary software with GPL'ed
>> software (that is not licensed under a dual license) violates the terms
>> of the GPL.
> 
> That's exactly my point. Even the owner of the copyrights can't publish
> the result.

They can publish what they own rights to.

>> Copyright by definition is an exclusive right, though.
> 
> I don't believe that's the case, once you start getting into work that
> is composed of multiple copyrightable elements. However, IANAL, so you
> might be right.

Everything that I've read that defines copyright defines it as an 
exclusive right.  Ultimately - in the eyes of the law - some one person 
or entity has to be the decision maker.

> I can have a compilation copyright on a collection of individually
> copyrighted stories, if you want to talk about prose, yes?

Yes, provided that you have acquired the rights to the individual stories 
from the authors/publishers of the individual stories.

Similarly, on many forums there is a "compilation copyright" held by the 
forum operator.  The rights to the individual messages are granted as 
part of the terms of service for the use of the forums.

That permits a forum operator to publish a compilation of all the posts 
without explicitly going to each forum member and asking for explicit 
permission to publish each individual message they posted as a part of 
the compilation.

>> The director/studio has a compilation copyright in cases where they've
>> sought permission of the copyright holder for the music they've
>> included (assuming it's not covered under fair use, but that's another
>> discussion).
> 
> Right. But without the license, they can't make copies even tho they
> hold the compilation copyright.

Well, no, because the compilation copyright would be infringing on the 
rights of the individual "contributors", so it wouldn't be a valid 
copyright.

>>> This sort of
>>> thing held up numerous releases when rental DVDs first started getting
>>> popular, because nobody had pre-negotiated with the band for DVD
>>> rights.
>> 
>> Right, but at the same point the work is not released to the public
>> because the rights are not properly licensed.
> 
> That's my point. You have multiple entities with copyright on the work.
> It's not the case that anyone with a copyright on the work may make
> copies. It's the case that anyone with a copyright on the work may
> *prevent* copies.

Well, no, you have multiple entities with copyrighted content in the 
work, and if the "compiler" of the works doesn't seek permission to use 
them, then their copyright is invalid for the work as a whole (it would 
be valid for the parts they created or got rights to use), but if they 
don't have clear use rights to all of the content in their work, then 
they can't distribute it.

>> Legally, copyright is "the exclusive right of the author or creator of
>> a literary or artistic property (such as a book, movie or musical
>> composition) to print, copy, sell, license, distribute, transform to
>> another medium, translate, record or perform or otherwise use (or not
>> use) and to give it to another by will."
> 
> I think "exclusive right" doesn't mean it excludes others from holding a
> copyright. It means you have the exclusive right on the work you
> created. But if someone else creates a work based on yours, you don't
> get to distribute theirs, and they don't get to distribute yours, so
> it's possible you're deadlocked.
> 
> Which is important in this discussion.

By definition, the "exclusive" means "not shared".  If someone creates a 
work based on mine (a "derivative work"), the copyright they hold to that 
derivative work is contingent upon my granting them the rights to use my 
work (or a portion thereof where it's not covered by fair use doctrine).  
If I do not do that for whatever reason (I decide not to, they don't seek 
it, etc), then the work infringes my rights to my original work and I can 
sue them for infringement (but back to the point of the original topic 
here, I don't believe I can sue them for theft).

>>> Just like patents. If the device uses three different patented
>>> technologies, any one of those patent holders can refuse to license
>>> you their patent.
>> 
>> Right, in which case you cannot produce the device.
> 
> Yes. Having a patent doesn't allow you to make the device. Having the
> patent allows you to stop others from making the device.

A patent is legally defined as "an exclusive right to the benefits of an 
invention or improvement granted by the U.S. Patent Office, for a 
specific period of time, on the basis that it is novel (not previously 
known or described in a publication), "non-obvious" (a form which anyone 
in the field of expertise could identify), and useful."

Thus, it allows you to exclusively benefit from the invention and to 
define the terms under which others can.  The benefit could be a 
licensing fee, for example.

>> Clearly, though, the laws aren't clear, which is why there's such a
>> debate about it. :-)
> 
> Oh, I think they're clear as any other if you're an IP lawyer. We just
> don't have definitive resources, as well as living in different
> countries with different laws.

While I don't disagree that it is complicated by international 
boundaries, I think there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to the 
question of "is copyright infringement theft?".

Jim

Post a reply to this message