On 3/26/99, Jason Vogel <jasonvogel[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> This is different from my understanding of s103(a). If I wrote a sequel
> to Star Wars, for example, I obviously would not get copyright in any
> aspect of my story that was taken from George Lucas's preexisting
> material. But, this doesn't mean that the original aspects of my work
> are unprotected. In other words, in my understanding, George Lucas
> wouldn't be entitled to use the sequel without my permission any more
> than I would without his. If this is not so, it would be very bad news
> for sequel writers, creators of collective works, rap music producers,
> and others who create unauthorized derivative works hoping afterward to
> license the right to do so.
Bad news indeed. See, for example, Anderson v. Stallone, 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161 (C.D.Cal. 1989), where one Timothy Anderson wrote a 31 page treatment for a Rocky IV without first obtaining permission. The court held that, under 103(a), Anderson's copyright in his original contributions was forfeit because his treatment was an unauthorized derivative work. Anderson had sued Stallone for infringement (the actual Rocky IV apparently bore significant similarities to Anderson's Rocky IV treatment), but, without a valid copyright, he couldn't bring an infringement suit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:35 GMT