On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I discuss below, there are considerable grounds for believing that the > > category "derivative works" is completely disjoint from "collective > > works". > > In other words, you can't have a work where both categories apply. > > On 5/10/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A translation of an arrangement of two works, selected by a > > non-trivial criterion, is ... wait for it ... a derivative work _of_ a > > collection! "of" \neq "and". > > In other words, these two categories are not disjoint.
I do not believe this to be a contradiction. Collective works and derivative works are two entirely different concepts in copyright law, that nonetheless can apply to the same work. In their definition their have nothing in regard with each other, and are both grounds to grant copyright protection (or authorship, as is the more continental approach to copyright). But that they are not related in definition does not bar the possibility that in fact they can be applied to the same work. This would lead to a double copyright protection, but if you look at it from the viewpoint of authorship, this simply means there are two different reasons why one can be considered an author of an original work. A derivative work is not a collective work and vice-versa, but one work can be both at the same time. Kind regards Batist
