[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Question About GNU General Public License
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:49:20 +0200

Isaac wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:17:14 +0200, Alexander Terekhov <> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Isaac wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Cases like Sega and Connectix which I believe have been mentioned already 
> >> in
> >> this thread support the argument that linking to a library does not
> >> necessarily create a derivative work based on the library.
> >>
> >> Cases like the Teddy Ruxpin case involving third party tapes for a
> >> talking moving bear and Duke Nukem involving third party game levels
> >> for a video game support the opposite contention.  In those case the
> >> court found that the third party infringed despite the fact that
> >> none of the original work appeared in the derivative works.
> >
> > Do you have access to
> >
> > "Christian H. Nadan, Note, A Proposal to Recognize Component
> >  Works:  How a Teddy Bears on the Competing Ends of Copyright
> >  Law, 78 Cal.L.Rev."
> No I don't. 

I also don't have access (it seems to be available on westlaw only).
>             Is that a proposal to put the making of derivative works

in metaphysical sense...

> outside of the exclusive rights reserved to copyright holders?

... as long as you don't "recast, transform, or adapt" the "based on" 
work. I'd hope so. Well, I think that the law I already quote clear.

In German law, "derivative work" is called "Bearbeitung" (something
creative enough to have a copyright on "derivative work") and
"Umgestaltung" (modifications can't be copyrighted). Compilations
are "Sammelwerke". It's quite clear that when you "compose" copies
together (not modifying or even reading the code) the result is a 
compilation, not a derivative work.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]