Hi all,
I was wondering if someone could give me an opinion on the following... The exclusive rights given to owners of copyright in _literary_ works under the Australian Copyright Act include the right to make an adaptation of the work. This right is not extended to owners of copyright in _artistic_ works.
Now, can I assume that in the case of an artistic work, "adaptation" could be equated with "derivation", and if so, can anyone tell me what the intention might be in not granting this right?
The rights given for artistic works in Australia are:
To reproduce the work in a material form,
To publish the work,
To include the work in a television broadcast,
To cause a tv program which includes the work to be transmitted to
subscribers to a diffusion service.
I don't know what the provisions of the United States legislation are in this area, are they similar, or more specific?
The question is of interest to me because we're struggling with trying to develop a policy and code of ethics for dealing with photographs produced by uni. staff photographers- given the move towards increasing digitization and the ease with which the photographers' clients can change or manipulate the image; granted the university owns the copyright under either commissioned works or work made for hire, but what happens when Moral Rights legislation is enacted and the photographer presumably has a non-transferable right of integrity?
Sorry for the long rave....hope it makes sense.
Regards,
Mike
Michael M. Lean
University Copyright Officer and Production Coordinator
Audiovisual Services Kelvin Grove Campus
Queensland University of Technology
e-mail: m.lean[_at_]pop.qut.edu.au
snail mail: Locked Bag #2
P.O. Red Hill Qld 4059 Brisbane Australia
Phone 07 864 3383 Fax 07 864 3983
... Searching for the Bird of Paradigms in the Cyberforest....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:13 GMT