Henning Makholm wrote:
As far as I can see you are assuming that it is either "a derived work" or "mere aggregation", and cannot be both or neither. You then
That is because copyright law classifies them this way.
If it is not a derivative work nor an aggregate work, is a non-related work. Like Harry Potter and the Lord of The Rings Trilogy relate to one another. That is what copyright law says.try to argue that because it is not a derived work, it must me a mere aggregation. I dispute the initial assumption; it appears to be logically possible [1] that it is neither "derived work" or "mere aggregation".
AFAIK it would have to be a jurisdiction which copyright law is not based on the Berne convention, because such language (and the definition of derivative: a work that is based on an intelligent [=non-automatable], creative *transformation* of the original work).[1] And indeed plausible if one assumes a jurisdiction with a sufficiently narrow definition of "derived work". (I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright law is not phrased in terms of "derived" - or that have several native words which are given different explicit meaning by the local law but would all need to be represented as a form of "derive" in English).
HTH, Massa