Peter Fairbrother scripsit:
> No, a derivative work. Eg, the first author writes a book, the second
> author makes a film of the book. The film is a derivative work. The
> film director needs two seperate permissions from the book author:
> one permission to make a derivative work, and another per
John Cowan wrote:
> 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 l
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 collectiv
Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit:
> By writing something down, you become a copyright owner. That ownership
> right does not give you any special privilege or right to copy,
> distribute, etc. that work. If others have rights that are infringed by
> such acts, they are free to assert those ri
Scott Peterson wrote:
> The rights provided under US copyright law are negative
> rights (the right to exclude others), not positive rights
> (the right to do something yourself).
I don't think so, Scott. At least that's not how the copyright act reads:
"...The owner of copyright under this
Thanks for the link!
Just for clarification, my use of 'affirmative' right is a right that
gives the holder of that right the freedom to exercise that right (or
not exercise it), and raises no obligation in another except
non-interference.
That being said, an excerpt from 17 USC 106:
"has the
The list is archived at:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
This thread began sometime near the end of January.
Your assertion that these are "affirmative" rights is misleading. The copyright owner
has the right to be the exclusive one to do those things, but that's different from
saying
A copyright owner (owner of a wholly original work) has a number of
affirmative exclusive rights:
17 U.S.C.A. § 106
UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED
TITLE 17. COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER 1--SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Scott writes:
>
>>
>> (A)
>> You say: "each person has a duty not to hinder him [the author making a
>> copy of his own work]".
>> I am aware of no basis in US copyright law for such a duty. I am aware
>> of no basis in US copyright law for a positive right to make a c
Scott writes:
>
> (A)
> You say: "each person has a duty not to hinder him [the author making a
> copy of his own work]".
> I am aware of no basis in US copyright law for such a duty. I am aware
> of no basis in US copyright law for a positive right to make a copy. By
> writing something down, you
John --
I'll reply to two points:
(A) an authors positive right to copy? no.
(B) derivative works: what rights does the author of the original work
have
(A)
You say: "each person has a duty not to hinder him [the author making a
copy of his own work]".
I am aware of no basis in US copyright law f
Arien Ferrell wrote:
> I think I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I'd be interested in seeing
> the first few messages relating to the subject heading. How does the
> Copyright Act preempt GPL?
>
> A couple minor points of clarification relating to the message I received:
>
>>> A copyright hol
I think I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I'd be interested in seeing
the first few messages relating to the subject heading. How does the
Copyright Act preempt GPL?
A couple minor points of clarification relating to the message I received:
A copyright holder does not have a right to make a
Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit:
> A copyright holder does not have a right to make a copy. Rather, the
> copyright holder has the right to prevent others from making a copy.
Of course the copyright holder has the right to make a copy of the work.
That is to say that each person has a duty
Daniel --
A copyright right is not an affirmative right to do something. It is a
negative right. It is a right to prevent someone else from doing
something. (This 'negative' characteristic is true of patent rights as
well - they are also negative rights.)
A copyright holder does not have a right
15 matches
Mail list logo
