Bruce Lewis wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You must be reading something that isn't there. The "independent" > > status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s) > > in the sense that it "does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, > > ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the > > preexisting material" is the same in both cases. > > All I'm reading is that in both cases a new copyright exists,
Sure it exists. > contrary to your statement: > > > A non-derivative compilation (i.e. "not based" in the > > derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have > > its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. In the case of a non-derivative compilation, the new copyright that covers that work (as a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged) is indeed "its own" and just can't be preempted by the copyrights in the constituent works (there's no exclusive right to prepare [non-derivative] compilations). OTOH, derivative works can't be prepared without permission (that's apart from 17 USC 117 adaptations) and are under multiple copyrights: new copyright plus copyright(s) covering all those protected elements from the preexisting work. So it's not "its own" copyright. Got it now? regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
