RE : Re: Derivative Inquiry

[Agenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD) [jagenbro@*]
> The concept of a derivative work must imply the making
> (reproduction) of a
> copy -- not an exact copy, but a modified copy derived from
> the protected

[...]
> --NO COPIES, NO BREACH OF THE _COPY_ _RIGHT_.
I do not understand where you see a derivation or even an implied reproduction in tehe following case...

[Jason sheperd > A preschool daycare buys age apprpriate workbooks
> for its students, removes
> the pages and puts them in plastic in a binder (the binder has all
pages,
> cover, title page, etc) so that the teachers can work with each
student
> using a dry-erase marker on the plastic. This way the daycare only
has to
> purchase a couple sets for use with all of its students. No
photocopying is
> taking place. Our research indicates this is not a violation of the
> distribution right or derivative work right. Do you all agree?

On the assumption that it is a case about derivation of a protected work,
if derivation implies reproduction, therefore there is infringement. The argument seems only to work...

First, I do not understand where is the derivation. We cannot see this case as a derivation, only because we are looking for an implied reproduction.

• Really, putting a workbook in plastic in a binder is a derivation?

Second, I do not believe that derivation implies reproduction. Even if putting the workbook in a binder is a derivation, I do not see that this kind of derivative work breachs a copy-right. After all, the number of worbooks is the same, within or without a binder...

IMHO, this case is even a good example that derivation does not imply reproduction.

Regards- I.R.Maturana
(Am I stupid ?) Received on Wed Aug 30 2006 - 22:55:00 GMT