Rick Moen wrote:
Excuse me, but that's not what the clause in question says:
In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any
rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is
presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective
work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective
work in the same series.
>
Holder of the collective-work copyright implicitly acquires a "privilege
of reproducing and distributing". Any change in terms for the
collective work used for such reproduction and distribution that doesn't
injure (in a legal sense) the interests of contributors would not create
any actionable tort. Of course, it might be rude and unwise, but that's
different from being a tort.
Complications arise if contributors have explicit copyright / licence
statements of their own -- and nobody's going to be able to successfully
sue without registering his/her copyright claim (which hardly anyone
does).
Umm, right, sorry. Thanks for the correction: must've had a brain fart.
_______________________________________________
vox-tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
