Re: Court Says You Can Copyright A Cease-And-Desist Letter

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bob La Londe" wrote:
>
>> You can't do it.  The photograph would be a derivative work.
>
> So whats the rule on percentage of change for a derivative work?

In my previous post I misused the term derivative work.  In fact, a
derivative work is protected as long as it meets the legal standards.
I may be wrong on this but as I understand it the standard is not
percentage of change.  The issue is whether the derivative work
amounts to a "new work".  Following is a quote from the copyright.gov
which may help to explain it:

<!-- begin quote -->

Derivative Works
A ?derivative work,? that is, a work that is based on (or derived
from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it
includes what the copyright law calls an ?original work of
authorship.? Derivative works, also known as ?new versions,? include
such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations,
fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in
which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship
is a derivative work or new version.

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in
the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but
incorporates some previously published material. This previously
published material makes the work a derivative work under the
copyright law.

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from
the original to be regarded as a ?new work? or must contain a
substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions
of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work
as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be
original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and
format, for example, are not copyrightable.

<!-- end quote -->

What this tells us is that derivative works which are sufficiently
original to be seen as new works are themselves copyrightable.  My
earlier reply implied that derivative works are not protected.  I've
seen cases where copyright holders tried to insist that others not
use derivative work based on their copyrighted material.  Such
demands are nice to make but unenforceable against derivative work
that meets the standard.

One example of a copyright protected derivative work would be my FAQ
which contained over 10 Gigs of data.  On one obscure page there was
a brief quote from an author who chooses to remain anonymous (he's
afraid we'll go after him in court).  The quote cited a method
described in this newsgroup for wiring a certain type of window.  The
sock puppet that posted the suggestion here has complained bitterly
that I "stole" his copyright material.  Needless to say, his claim is
as without merit as his behavior here is repugnant.  The work (my
FAQ) contained thousands of pages, most of them written by me over
the years.  It also contained, in total, text sufficient to fill two
or three single-spaced, typed pages which was garnered from numerous
posts here.  All of the drawings were my own.  All photos and text
were my own or used with written permission authors of related FAQ's.

BTW, the terse quote from the anonymous poster who I nicknamed
Jiminex was a few sentences.  Accompanying it were images which I
drew and a note to the affect that the idea came from a Usenet post
whose author remained anonymous.  I still have the computer with the
FAQ on it but it hasn't been powered up for several years.  Some day
when I have time to mess with it I may try to resurrect it.  The
product specific pages are becoming obsolete but there are thousands
of pages of installation techniques, wiring methods and so forth
which are relevent today.

Another example of a derivative work is the hate website created my
the late Michael Sabodish.  He archived comments from numerous
posters, morphed images stolen from my website and assembled them in
a childish but creative attempt at harassment.  While the site was
more infantile than offensive, it might qualify as a derivative work.
Sadly, Mike spent almost all of his energy and eventually, his life
itself, on hatred and rage.  If he'd directed half of that energy on
something useful he'd have been rich and (possibly) still with us.  I
figure Jiminex and Cracker are both heading down the same path but by
different means of transport.  Jiminex rides only his rage but
Cracker floats along on a sea of alcohol and drugs.  In the end it
will be the same -- two more wasted lives.  AH, but I digress....
:^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>