On 18 Aug 2005 15:17:12 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On 16 Aug 2005 14:22:25 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated. >> > In the sense I'm using "modified", a naked statue remains unmodified >> > when clothing is draped over it. An artist might think differently. >> >> I would find calling such draping "adapting" to be a stretch of both the >> ordinary and the legal meaning of the work. Using a statute as a clothing >> rack is adopting but not adapting. Now if instead you had to twist one of >> the statutes arms around so that draped clothing would not fall, you've >> done some adapting. > > In the ordinary sense, the clothing adapts the art to a new purpose, > changing its character. The statue isn't a clothing rack. As to the > legal meaning, I don't particularly care, as my argument doesn't hinge > on that one word. What I'm saying is that it's unwise to assume that > because you haven't modified the original, that there's no derivative > work. > > The U.S. Copyright office agrees with me: > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#examples > > "Sound recording (long-playing record in which two of the > 10 selections were previously published on a 45 rpm single)"
I think they are saying that the 10 song compilation is derivative of the original 2 song compilation and not that the individual selections copied unto the LP have become derivative works of the individual selections on the single. Isaac _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
