On 5/10/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
I agree that the concepts are different concepts. I do not agree that the concepts are disjoint > 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). I disagree that they have nothing to do with each other. First off, they both have to do with copyright. Secondly, under U.S. law, both definitions explicitly cover the case where multiple works are copyrighted. Once again, I agree that these are different concepts, but the difference is not an exclusive difference. > But that they are not related in definition does not bar the > possibility that in fact they can be applied to the > same work. Of course, having related (but different) definitions also does not bar the possibility that in fact they can be applied to the same work. But recognizing that the definitions are related does defuse arguments based on the idea that these concepts can not overlap. > A derivative work is not a collective work and vice-versa, but one > work can be both at the same time. I'll agree with this: that a work is a derivative work does not guarantee that it is a collective work, and that a work is a collective work does not guarantee that it is a derivative work. However, a work which is a derivative work can very well be a work which is a collective work. And, a work which is a collective work can very well be a work which is a derivative work. -- Raul
