Peter Fairbrother scripsit: > Yes. In a derivative work, the second author has the right to make copies of > his contribution to the derivative work, but he has no right at all to make > copies of the whole derivative work.
[analogous points snipped] You sound like you are describing a collective rather than a derivative work. > He also has no rights in the derivative work as a whole - such rights don't > exist. There is no copyright in the work as a whole, only seperate > copyrights in the pre-existing work, and in the added work. This directly contravenes the text of the statute. The copyright owner of a derivative work is a copyright owner with all the rights of a copyright owner, except that he cannot prevent the creation of other works derivative of the original work but not based on his contribution. > Note that copyright only subsists in _original_ works, and not in > _derivative_ works. A derivative work does not per se have any associated > copyright - though the parts of it may have associated copyright. A derivative work is an original work, except insofar as it is derivative. "Original" here is clearly opposed to "unoriginal". IANAL, TINLA. -- If you understand, John Cowan things are just as they are; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan if you do not understand, http://www.reutershealth.com things are just as they are. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
