Richard Tobin wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [presumably court opinions about derivative works - I have no intention > of reading them] > > So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they > wish to prevent their work from being used in this way?
What do you mean? > Or do you think authors should be required to allow it? Just in case... HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476: ----- Between them the terms ''compilations'' and ''derivative works'' which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically represent different concepts. A ''compilation'' results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright [...] an unauthorized translation of a novel [i.e. derivative work] could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry [i.e. compilation] could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. ----- It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
