4 ms·
Certainly in the UK it seems you have to have permission from the original rights holder to create the derivative work in the first place. If they didn't have t
by seanhunter 3y ago
Certainly in the UK it seems you have to have permission from the original rights holder to create the derivative work in the first place. If they didn't have this permission they weren't entitled to create the work and therefore their claim of copyright in the original parts of that work would be moot. I'd be surprised if that were not the case elsewhere https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_work...
- jasinjames 3y agoThis aligns with what I was taught in my U.S. Intellectual property class a few years ago
- Dalewyn 3y agoIt's also the case in Japan. Japan's very lucrative doujinshi (read: fan novels) and fan art scenes exist purely because most of the creators and publishers turn a blind eye to them (it's free marketing and good will from fans of their works). They only start caring if the fan works are being sold for profit or harming the original IPs. Comiket exists thanks to everyone knowing and respecting where the invisible lines in the sand are drawn.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoThat's the opposite: you don't need permission from the author to do anything. Only if you make trouble, the author may slap you.
- Dalewyn 3y agoNo, you do need their permissions. It's just most creators and publishers choose to ignore the otherwise flagrant violations of their copyright, because most of the time everyone wins.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoThey make fanfiction without permission, and it works fine, so they don't need permission.
- Dalewyn 3y agoNot obtaining permission and not needing permission are two very different things. Permission is absolutely required in Japan, legally speaking. In practice, the requirement for permission is ignored under gentlemen's agreements.
- antiterra 3y agoDid you not study Pickett v Prince in your class?
- seanhunter 3y agoThat is what Picket vs Prince says is it not? http://www.pelosolaw.com/casebriefs/copyright/pickett.html http://www.pelosolaw.com/casebriefs/copyright/pickett.html
- antiterra 3y agoYou are absolutely correct, I mistakenly thought you were responding to a different comment.
- Lapha 3y agoNote that the author of the unauthorised derivative work 'B', based on the 'original' work 'A', still retains copyright over their own (unauthorised) work B. Even if a court compels the author of B to stop distributing their infringing work B this fact doesn't change, B doesn't go out of copyright, and the author of A (or anybody else for that matter) doesn't have any additional rights to the use the work B. In this particular case the Guardian article doesn't answer the question, but it's almost certainly the case that the courts found that Tolkien's estate didn't infringe upon Polychron's unauthorised work. In the UK (and much of the world), the bar for creating an original work is incredibly low, currently it's the EU approach where the author needs to express (creative) originality through choice, selection, or arrangement of a work. Previously the UK had the 'sweat of the brow' rule where the bar was even lower, only requiring 'labour, skill or judgement' in producing a work. The UK also explicitly protects derivative works from being considered infringement if they're found to be a parody, caricature, or pastiche, but this obviously isn't the case here. Also note that 'copyright service' is a private company that sells copyright protection as a service through registering a work. The UK, unlike some countries, has no register of copyrighted works so you don't need to register a work for it to receive copyright protection in the UK.