I want to revisit this one point. On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is not true under the Berne Convention or under 17 USC as I read > them; indeed, the term "collective works" and its superset > "compilations" appear to be explicitly reserved in 17 USC 101 (1976 > and later) for classes of "original works of authorship". As I > discuss below, there are considerable grounds for believing that the > category "derivative works" is completely disjoint from "collective > works".
Let's imagine, for a moment, that "derivative works" are completely disjoint from "collective works", because of the Berne Convention. What would that mean? First off, "disjoint" means "mutually exclusive". So "derivative works" can't be "collective works", and "collective works" can't be derivative works". This means that the definitions of these terms must be written so that this is the case. So let's take a look at the implications of this concept in the context of two legal documents: (1) 17 USC 101 says "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works", Clearly, the law is in error. It should not say "or more". This is obvious from the definition of collective work, and from the concept of disjoint sets. (2) In the Berne Convention web page, this clause is linked to by the phrase "Derivative works": Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work. and this clause is linked to by the phrase "Collections works": Collections of literary or artistic works such as encyclopaedias and anthologies which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such, without prejudice to the copyright in each of the works forming part of such collections. Now, since we're pretending that these are completely disjoint concepts, you can't have a work which is both a derivative work, and a collective work. That means, that if you have have an arrangement which involves two works, translations are not protected as original works. Protection for translations falls under "derivative works" and "more than one document" falls under "collective works". Clearly, this feature of the Berne Convention -- that derivative works and collective works are mutually exclusive -- is implied by the grammar of the above-quoted text. (But it would probably help if this were a really long post, so you could lose track of the argument.) -- Raul
