On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder, > and didn't even have have license. > > That doesn't seem very interesting.
You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather than the reasoning that they contain. The Palladium decision addresses, among other things, three points of law -- whether any literal copying is required in order to find that one work is a derivative of another, whether a valid copyright can be obtained on a derivative work created without license from the copyright holder on the original, and whether a US Copyright Office Circular has any value as a legal precedent -- that I find quite relevant to the discussion at hand. Cheers, - Michael
