What is copyright in derived works?

Posted Dec 6, 2024 1:33 UTC (Fri) by jjs (guest, #10315)
In reply to: Is the GPL actually viral across dynamic linking? by Wol
Parent article: Two approaches to tightening restrictions on loadable modules

> As a fan of pTerry, he often did that a lot. To truly understand Maskerade, you need to know Phantom of the Opera. To truly understand Wytches Abroad, you need to know Hamlet. As far as other authors / composers go, West Side Story may be a nice musical, but would you get the deeper meaning without knowing Romeo and Juliet? I love Miss Saigon, but much more is understood when you know Madame Butterfly. Etc etc.

I'm also aware that Phantom of the Opera, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and Madam Butterfly are out of copyright. You can find legal copies of them on Project Gutenberg. So Pratchet's fine works are NOT violations of copyright for, among other reasons, the fact there's no copyright to violate. It also means the examples don't really throw any light on whether or not his writings would have been copyright violations IF those works were still under copyright. Courts (at least in the US) tend to go with the simplest conclusion to reach, and (traditionally) purposefully did NOT speculate on other reasoning that were irrelevant (i.e. in this case, whether or not it would have been a violation IF the preceding work were copyrighted), in order to avoid setting precedent.

> That's often called FanFic, and/or "Classic Literature".

And fanfic can certainly be violation of copyright. Try writing a Star Wars novel and publishing it without getting Disney (previously LucasFilms) license. Desilu was very tolerant of fanfic for Star Trek (not certain about current owners).

The dividing line between "copyright violation" and "no copyright violation" in derived works (and what constitutes a derived work), from my understanding, is something that's decided on a case by case basis by the courts in the US.

Note: IANAL