On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, the artwork (if included) would be literally infringing. The > "mise en scene" doctrine is not about literal copying, it's about the > creation of sequels (parodies, clones, etc.) that plagiarize the > original work and siphon off the commercial potential of it and/or of > derivative works.
But the only people who can own a copy of this "sequel" are people that own a legitimate copy of the game. So where is the plagarism? How does your "siphon off the commercial potential" work in this case? > If you understood the meaning of "derivative work" -- as you have > conclusively demonstrated elsewhere that you do not -- you would have > no difficulty identifying those elements. This ad hominem approach of yours is getting annoying. You've presented cases which show that you do not believe in your own assertions about what derivative works mean. Specifically, you've claimed that derivative works are disjoint from collecitive works and anthologies, but you've also stated that the same work can be both a derivative work and an anthology. Until you can present a consistent view of your own beliefs, I cannot take seriously your critiques of my understanding. -- Raul
