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
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: