I have no expertise on UK law so I will accept your interpretation. In the
US, copyright holders retain the EXCLUSIVE right to control reproductions,
performances, displays, distribution AND the creation of derivative works.
Copyright law in the US is complex, confusing, and has a lot of grey areas,
but on this point the law is axiomatic.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Watts
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 8:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Concurrent Licenses?
>
>
> On Wednesday 12 April 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Yes, it is a definitional rule of copyright law. Derivative works, by
> >definition, are copyrighted works of the original copyright holder.
>
> [ IANAL, but.. ]
>
> Really ? That might be the rule in the US, but in the UK, AIR, both
> the original copyright holder (A) and the maker of the derived work
> (B) have an interest (provided the derivation is non-trivial in the
> copyright sense), so although A can stop B doing any of the
> restricted acts to the derived work, B can similarly stop A (however,
> I can't find any authority on this either way just at the moment).
>
> Of course, the typical tactic in these situations is to force
> delivery up of the rights in the derivation as part of the settlement,
> but it was a nice try :-).
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Richard.
>
