Re: Is a sequel a derivative work?

I agree with you in theory; but as a practical matter, courts have always treated sequels as within the derivative work right, period. Thus, the only basis for treating TWDG differently is fair use (parody, comment, criticism). - Tyler Ochoa

>>> LURIE[_at_]law.villanova.edu 05/31/01 11:14AM >>>
All of the discussion re "The Wind Done Gone" seems to assume that a sequel is necessarily a derivative work within the meaning of the Copyright Act. I'm not so sure. (I'm NOT asking whether an unauthorized sequel is an infringement, which is another question.) For example, I would consider all (except the first, of course) of the Rabbi Small (Friday, the Rabbi etc., Saturday, the Rabbi etc.) novels to be sequels of the first, I'm not sure that I would consider all after the first to be derivative works of the first. In fact, I rather doubt that I would consider them derivative works. However, I have not researched the question, and don't recall ever reading a case on the question. I think the answer to this question would be relevant to the infringement issue in the GWTW v. TWDG litigation. What do others think?

Howard

Prof. Howard R. Lurie
299 N. Spring Mill Road
Villanova, PA 19085
(610) 519-7067
lurie[_at_]law.villanova.edu Received on Fri Jun 01 2001 - 23:59:52 GMT