Talk:Derivative work

message: Does the picture used as an example violate copyright law? 
VMG - 24OCT2007
:In looking at the page for the image, the author indicates each of the sources for the composite image as being from the wikimedia commons. Donald (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: Should this page read "renting the prints was a copyright infringement". The word "renting" seems out of place. Was this perhaps supposed to be "releasing the prints was a copyright infringement"?
MP 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor change 

message: Half the links are bad, article overall does not read very well.  Perhaps I'll get around to it, but maybe someone else who's knowledgeable wants to jump in and fix it?  I'm going to put a cleanup broilerplate on the article.
:What generally constitutes the building blocks of "non-trivial" copyrighted material, and thus a derivative work, is a question that keeps many copyright lawyers in steady employment.
That line is not really appropriate. --Josh3736 05:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs work 

message: I added the cleanup tag mostly because the first tag was removed with no explanation by an anon, but also because the article needs cleanup. Copyright lawyers, please step in. Deltabeignet 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: so ... is sampling of copyrighted songs legal or not? --Nerd42 19:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article clears some minor things up but also confuses me more 

message: I think we need links to terms like aggregated works and fair use
Is this definition compatible with the this article? - 
 DERIVATIVE WORK - 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'. 17 U.S.C.
Kctucker 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Terms and alternative definitions 

message: Expanding on Nerd42's and Kctucker's points, I would like to see more discussion of what does not qualify as a derivative work.  I think the article needs clarification of the boundaries, which are now neglected, except some weak counterexamples with software (drivers, libraries).  This article has virtually nothing to refute, for example, the claim that any book in English is a derivative work of Merriam Webster's Dictionary.  Such a notion is obviously absurd, but I'd like some guidance on supporting less obvious claims.  Isn't there a legal distinction between copyrighting content versus presentation?  Facts versus phrasings?  "You can't copyright facts" rings in my head.  What's the bigger story?  
I have made works about HTML at http://www.visibone.com/html/.   I used and refered to HTML specifications at http://www.w3.org/html/.  I typed and positioned all content from scratch, no phrases or diagrams are clones of those in the specs, yet the influence on content is clear.  How is my work not derived from those specifications?  I realize the edges must be very fuzzy, but certainly there is precedent for at least coarsely locating it.
Defining (or linking to) "fair use" helps, but I don't think it's complete to say "fair use" covers everything allowed and "derivative work" everything not.
(Incidentally I'm not concerned in my own case about my old HTML reference, more about an upcoming PHP reference.)
Bob Stein - VisiBone 13:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterexamples 

message: I am attempting to revamp this article for clarity and usefulness. I hope I have addressed some of the previously stated concerns about this article. I've made some quite substantial edits that I hope they improve the article.
===the changes made===
The article was first of all quite sloppy, with numerous statements about derivative works that were not in context and did not create a cohesive picture of what a derivative work is. Many of these statements were also either not cited or were not cited in an appropriate format. I apologize to anyone whose contribution was deleted, but much of what previously existed would take too long to format into the cohesive description of derivative works I am trying to build. I've cleaned up the section on U.S. law and tried to categorize it into conceptual chunks that make sense. I've added subheadings to try and better delineate these categories.
There were also concerns that the article did not deal appropriately with the fair use doctrine, which is actually quite important in understanding the limits of the derivative work right. I added a section on fair use and linked to the fair use article.
I also changed the word "artistic" to "expressive" in the opening line of the article. I made this change to indicate that derivative works can include non-artistic works such things as computer programs or telephone directories, while still articulating the fact that copyright protection only extends to expressive works.
Finally, I added more statutory background. Knowing the statutory background is helpful in understanding copyright law, as it is a field that relies heavily on a statutory basis. Hopefully this change provides relevant law while maintaining a level of readability that is accessible to non-lawyers.
===what still needs be done===
The changes I made do not address the central concern that this article is U.S.-centric. Unfortunately, my understanding of international IP is extremely limited. In addition, the need for more and better examples, including counter-examples, still exists.
Donald (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantial Edits on December 22, 2007

message: The changes I made do not address the central concern that this article is U.S.-centric. Unfortunately, my understanding of international IP is extremely limited. In addition, the need for more and better examples, including counter-examples, still exists.
Donald (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what still needs be done

message: This section has a couple of problems. First, the statement that all cases dealing with derivative works of software are fact specific and don't deal with the issue broadly needs to be backed up with a citation. I'm not sure that it is even an accurate assessment of the state of the law.
Second, wikipedia really shouldn't give out legal advice, even in the form 'rules of thumb.' Aside from any sticky legal issues arising from someone following such advice, it really isn't encyclopedic material.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldrobertsoniii (talk • contribs) 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivative works of software

message: I am working on supplying citations for statements that WLU questioned. It will take a while to annotate this. But I intend to plug away at it. PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplying authority

message: This article was mentioned and quoted on DailyKos.com by Markos Moulitsas himself. See  or . Bearian (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention on [[DailyKos]] 

message: It would be great if this article specifically addressed the issue of when a photo constitutes a derivative or transformative work.  I find it unenlightening with respect to some questions about the media, e.g.:
#If a photographer takes straightforward picture of a painting offered for sale on a public street, the painter has copyright rights?
#If someone dresses up in costume, and a photographer takes their picture (a candid or a posed shot) on a public street, the subject has copyright rights?
(PS: US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works is a broken link.) --Elvey (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found some good guidance on question #2, particularly with respect to Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan --Elvey (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: It can be disputed whether the former is a derivate of the latter; further, if it, it must be noted that Romeo and Juliet is itself a derivate of previous
works (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragical_History_of_Romeus_and_Juliet or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramus_and_Thisbe_.
94.220.254.157 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Side Story/Romeo and Juliet 

message: It is claimed in the article that pop-up ads create a derivative work of the web page that's partially covered up by the ad. However, the reference seems to state exactly the opposite, "The Court finds this argument unpersuasive ... Plaintiffs do not have any property interest in the content of a user's pixels, much less a copyright interest." Perhaps this example should be removed from the article or amended to explain that one window partially covering another window is not a derivative work? Maghnus (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop-up ad example may be wrong 

message: The second para of the lead-in starts with
"Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both original and derivative works. They grant authors the right to impede or otherwise control their integrity and the author's commercial interests."
Could someone who knows what the intended meaning might be, please edit it for clarity? What is allowed to be impeded? Whose integrity is at issue?
 Phil Barker 09:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors given the right to impede their integrity? 

message: At the end of the section "When does derivative-work copyright apply?", the last line reads "The courts have not yet addressed the issue of lawful (i.e., not unlawful) use without authorization, as in the Pretty Woman case."
However, in the case of Keeling v. Hars, No. 13‐694‐cv, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, it was concluded that unauthorised lawful derivative works are eligible for copyright protection:
 We hold, for substantially the reasons stated by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Judge), that, if the creator of an unauthorized work stays within the bounds of fair use and adds sufficient originality, she may claim protection under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 103, for her original contributions.
(See http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4f313489-6555-485a-a400-bc264009c5e2/2/doc/13-694_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4f313489-6555-485a-a400-bc264009c5e2/2/hilite/)
That section of the article should therefore be updated to reflect this new information.
--Cannaya (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unauthorised Lawful Derivative Works 

message: Someone who completely misunderstood the point of the cited article on LHOOQ changed "mocking" to "imitated." The point of the cited article is that Duchamps incensed the French bourgeoisie by mocking their idol, NOT by imitating it. It would not have been a parody if it merely imitated the work. Whoever it was who made this edit, please do not make changes where you do not understand the issue. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous edit of Mona Lisa Mustache discussion  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Derivative work. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040815124629/http://www.artslaw.org:80/DERIV.HTM to http://www.artslaw.org/DERIV.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Derivative work. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070127175425/http://laws.justice.gc.ca:80/en/showdoc/cs/C-42/bo-ga:l_I-gb:s_3//en to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-42/bo-ga:l_I-gb:s_3//en#codese:3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Derivative work. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051228180915/http://www.copyright.gov:80/circs/circ14.html to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Derivative work. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430131913/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2002scc34/2002scc34.html to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2002scc34/2002scc34.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-42/bo-ga%3Al_I-gb%3As_3//en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Derivative work. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905171453/http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/batlinsnydertext.htm to http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/batlinsnydertext.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've added the globalize banner: Beyond short definitions in the 1st section, the majority of the article purely cites US case law. (Though ironically I might soon contribute to the problem if I can find the proper sources. To my recollection, section 4 titled "Liability of derivative-work" is an oversimplification of the US case law.) DPenner1 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Globalize banner