[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: License violation in "new" Plex86

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:

> | So, looking at the decision of the Gaiman/McFarlane case, that doesn't
> | appear to be the case: despite the sequential nature of comic book
> | production (storyine -> script -> editor -> art -> publication), the
> | characters were regarded as very clear joint works by the court.
> Ah, but there was no intermediate publication, which may be the actual
> distinction.  :-P  If the script had been published and then the comic
> book had been based on the published script, without consultation with
> the script author (except to get a license from the copyright holder to
> make the 'adaptation'), I expect it would have been treated
> differently.

Really?  I thought copyright existed from when a work was fixed in
form, not from publication.  But maybe the distinction for jointness
is different.

> ~ In cases like that, the first copyright holder appears to generally
> have the right to completely prohibit further publication of the second
> work, unless the license he gave to the second copyright holder
> precludes that.  :-P  Unfortunately, there does seem to be a certain
> amount of fuzziness in the question of whether something is a joint work
> or a derived work.  :-P

Hm.  Clearly I need to read more about this.


Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: