Brock Shinen wrote:
> Not true. The author of the derivative work only owns what
> he/she has contributed, not the entire derivative work.
More precisely, "the copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." 17 USC 103.
But I wasn't talking about ownership of the preexising materials, only the ownership of the derivative work. What I originally said was:
> Absent a contract saying otherwise, the author of the derivative work
> is the owner of the derivative work. His rights may be limited by the
> terms of the license he received from the original author.
The original author doesn't own a derivative work created, under license, by a different person -- unless the license says otherwise.
Does Margaret Mitchell's estate own Alice Randall's derivative work, "The Wind Done Gone"? Some portion of it?
/Larry Rosen Received on Fri Aug 29 2003 - 23:25:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT