>So, I don't see how UK law permits derivative works.
>Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other when we say
>"derivative works". Compare the definition of a
>derivative work in US law with an adaptation in UK
>law. -- "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one
>or more preexisting works, such as a translation,
>musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization,
>motion picture version, sound recording, art
>reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other
>form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or
>adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions,
>annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,
>which, as a whole, represent an original work of
>authorship, is a “derivative work”. -- Most of this is
>either an adaptation under UK law or would be treated
>as copying of a substantial portion. The last
>sentence, concerning an edited work would probably be
>treated as a joint work under UK law, which I think
>comes back to the same result as US law -- neither
>party can publish without the other's permission.
This is much wider than the UK definition of adaptation. The first sentence pretty much matches but the second is not included at all. It could be argued that a work which comprised a substantial amount of text from the first work was a joint work but it is not an adaptation. Without a substantial amount of the same text it is a completely separate work. I'm not sure about paraphrasing but I've seen nothing to suggest it is regarded as copying but I'm not up on all the case law.
Even this US definition appears narrower than the one used in Issaries FPP but this may be due to case law expanding the definition of derivative work.
>Simply using ideas from a prior work is not usually a
>copyright problem. (E.g., a scientific article can
>freely discuss ideas in another scientific article,
>even in the absence of fair use provisions.) The
>difficulty lies in national treatment of whether
>fictional characters and places are copyrightable
>separately from the words used to describe them. For
>example, can you write a James Bond novel? I don't
>know the answer to that one from a copyright
>perspective.
This raises another issue which appears to differ between the US and UK. In the UK copyright applies to a complete work, published or unpublished, not everything connected with that work in the author's mind.
I suspect James Bond has been trademarked like the Harry Potter characters I mentioned previously specifically to address this issue.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/ ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail