On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work >>> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the >>> one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed >>> by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting >>> material employed in the work")? >> >> >> Read the deletion discussion. > > I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not > address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only > the copyright on the derivative work. > Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II:
"The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is "No"." _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
