Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> > (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).
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:21:40AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> In jurisdictions such as the Italian one, for instance?
> In Italian author's right law ("legge sul diritto d'autore"), there is
> no use of or definition for the term "derivative work", AFAICS.
> The law speaks about collective works ("opere collettive") and creative
> elaborations of the work ("elaborazioni di carattere creativo
> The former term refers to works that result from joining other works or
> parts of works in a creative way (by means of choice and coordination
> for a specific goal).
> The latter refers to substancial transformations and modifications (of a
> work) that have creative character.
This may just be a notational difference.
In U.S. law, similar concepts exist. The law talks about collective
works and derivative works, and to a casual reader it appears as though
collective works are in some way different from derivative works.
In U.S. law, in both kinds of cases, an issue is: is there enough
creativity in this derivative work for it to be granted copyright coverage
as a unique work?
However, for collective works there's some additional writeup to
distinguish editorial work on the anthology (or whatever) from editorial
work within a particular work.
But, of course, it's legal to publish an anthology and also edit the
stories within that anthology (as long as you have adequate copyrights).
I'd be surprised if Italian law didn't have this same basic structure,
though perhaps with different details.