On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:21:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Yes, but obviously I'm talking about the case where you didn't aquire
> those licenses.

In those cases, then your copyright wouldn't be valid because it contains 
infringing material (at least at the points at which there is infringing 
material).

> Anyway, I don't know that I'm knowlegable enough to resolve this, so
> I'll defer it to you.

I was thinking the same thing (ie, that I don't know that I'm 
knowledgeable enough to resolve this). :-)

>> Well, no, because the compilation copyright would be infringing on the
>> rights of the individual "contributors", so it wouldn't be a valid
>> copyright.
> 
> Sure it would. I can put together five of your stories and call it a
> compilation. I don't get to publish it, because I didn't get a license
> from you. You don't get to take my work, tho, and make copies either.

"As soon as a work is created and is in a tangible form (such as writing 
or taping) the work automatically has federal copyright protection. On 
any distributed and/or published work a notice should be affixed stating 
the word copyright, copy or ©, with the name of the creator and the date 
of copyright (which is the year of first publication)."

...Hmmm, OK, I guess that agrees with what you're saying. :-)

>> 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.
> 
> I'm not sure that invalidates the copyright, tho. I think it just means
> they don't have license to publish it, and I think that's a separate
> thing.
> 
> I could be wrong, tho.

Indeed, we both could be. :-)

>> 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).
> 
> See, I don't think that's the case. I think they can apply for and
> obtain a copyright on the work, and I think that *you* don't have the
> copyright on their derivative work.

I think we're saying the same thing.  A license to use copyrighted 
material isn't the same as transfer of the copyright.  Their right to 
distribute (which is a right I can confer by my ownership of the 
copyright) their derivative work is dependent on my granting them a 
license to use my work within theirs.

> If you write a series of stories about Meteor Man, and then I write a
> new story about Meteor Man without your permission, who owns the
> copyright on *my* story, if anyone?  You? It's my story.  Me? It's your
> character. Nobody? It's public domain and you can't control the copying.
> Both of us? Neither of us can publish without the other's permission,
> which I think is the right answer.

I see what you're saying.  You would own the right on the story, but the 
rights holders for the character would be able to shut you down.  Similar 
in some ways to the book that was released about something in the Harry 
Potter universe which Rowling sued over.

>> 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?".
> 
> Possibly. I think the US supreme court has indeed said that copyright
> infringement isn't theft.

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message