Re: obscure derivative works question

John Noble writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> You seem to interpret my attempt to apply your analysis to these facts
> as an ad absurdum attack on your analysis. This suggests that I'm
> over-reaching. But it seems to me not unreasonable to conclude that
> the author of an unauthorized derivative, while liable for damages (if
> any) and subject to an injunction (where appropriate), does not also
> forfeit his creative contribution.

     I apologize for not understanding your point. It appears that we are saying much the same thing (for once, at least!). I did not intend to say you were overreaching, only that my hypo was not yours. Now that I understand your point, I see no obvious reason for not defining "part" in section 103(a) in the way you suggest, and for the reason you give of avoiding forfeiture of a creative contribution.

Dennis S. Karjala
Professor of Law
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287
602-965-4010
602-965-2427 (fax)
dennis.karjala[_at_]asu.edu Received on Fri Nov 15 1996 - 00:25:13 GMT