4 ms·

I see this kind of argument come up a lot when talking about copyrights and patents. This is not how that works. If someone creates a derivative work (e.g. cra

I see this kind of argument come up a lot when talking about copyrights and patents. This is not how that works. If someone creates a derivative work (e.g. crazy colors), that new person does own the copyright in the new "crazy colors" version, but they don't own the copyright to the black and white version. However, the new crazy colors version contains the rights of both the old and the new author, so that in order to publish the crazy color version, they would have to obtain a licence to the original version or else be infringing. In short, the new version has two rights, owned by two different people, not one.

simiones 6y ago
> If someone creates a derivative work (e.g. crazy colors), that new person does own the copyright in the new "crazy colors" version, but they don't own the copyright to the black and white version. I don't think that is true at all - as far as I know, copyright on a derived work belongs entirely to the copyright owner of the original work. If I create and sell prints of a Game of Thrones character, I am infringing HBO's copyright, and any money I make are owed to HBO legally. If you then create T-Shirts with my print and sell those, you are also infringing HBO's copyright, and all the money you make is also HBO's legally - you don't owe me 1 cent, since I had no right to copy HBO's work in the first place. If HBO wants to sell T-shirts with my print, they don't owe me anything. However, patent law does work like you mention - you can have a patent on a technology, and I can have a patent on an enhancement over that basic technology. I can't create a product based on your base technology if you don't want me to, but you also can't create a product based on my enhancement if I don't want you to.
- salted-fry 6y ago
  For precedent on this, see the case Anderson v. Stallone, in which Timothy Anderson sued Stallone/MGM for allegedly ripping off his fan script for Rocky 4. Courts ruled that his fan script, as a derivative work of Rocky, had no copyright protection, and so MGM was free to rip it off if they wanted to. I happen to disagree, in that I think the law should say that derivative works are co-owned by the owners of the original work and the creator of the derivative; but that does not seem to be what the law currently says.
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    Unless the derivative work was created with permission.
    - salted-fry 6y ago
      You're right - the case I'm quoting is specifically about unauthorized derivative works, which is a pretty important distinction, especially in this context (as presumably the colorizations of Garfield were authorized)
      - jonny_eh 6y ago
        Right, and since the online Garfields have unique colours, and future licensees can't just use them. They'd need to put in the effort to re-colourize, or pay the site for their colourized versions too.
gnopgnip 6y ago
The new copyright only applies if the derivative work was created with permission

simiones 6y ago

> If someone creates a derivative work (e.g. crazy colors), that new person does own the copyright in the new "crazy colors" version, but they don't own the copyright to the black and white version. I don't think that is true at all - as far as I know, copyright on a derived work belongs entirely to the copyright owner of the original work. If I create and sell prints of a Game of Thrones character, I am infringing HBO's copyright, and any money I make are owed to HBO legally. If you then create T-Shirts with my print and sell those, you are also infringing HBO's copyright, and all the money you make is also HBO's legally - you don't owe me 1 cent, since I had no right to copy HBO's work in the first place. If HBO wants to sell T-shirts with my print, they don't owe me anything. However, patent law does work like you mention - you can have a patent on a technology, and I can have a patent on an enhancement over that basic technology. I can't create a product based on your base technology if you don't want me to, but you also can't create a product based on my enhancement if I don't want you to.

salted-fry 6y ago
For precedent on this, see the case Anderson v. Stallone, in which Timothy Anderson sued Stallone/MGM for allegedly ripping off his fan script for Rocky 4. Courts ruled that his fan script, as a derivative work of Rocky, had no copyright protection, and so MGM was free to rip it off if they wanted to. I happen to disagree, in that I think the law should say that derivative works are co-owned by the owners of the original work and the creator of the derivative; but that does not seem to be what the law currently says.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  Unless the derivative work was created with permission.
  - salted-fry 6y ago
    You're right - the case I'm quoting is specifically about unauthorized derivative works, which is a pretty important distinction, especially in this context (as presumably the colorizations of Garfield were authorized)
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      Right, and since the online Garfields have unique colours, and future licensees can't just use them. They'd need to put in the effort to re-colourize, or pay the site for their colourized versions too.

gnopgnip 6y ago

The new copyright only applies if the derivative work was created with permission