Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | So, looking at the decision of the Gaiman/McFarlane case, that doesn't > | appear to be the case: despite the sequential nature of comic book > | production (storyine -> script -> editor -> art -> publication), the > | characters were regarded as very clear joint works by the court. > > Ah, but there was no intermediate publication, which may be the actual > distinction. :-P If the script had been published and then the comic > book had been based on the published script, without consultation with > the script author (except to get a license from the copyright holder to > make the 'adaptation'), I expect it would have been treated > differently.
Really? I thought copyright existed from when a work was fixed in form, not from publication. But maybe the distinction for jointness is different. > ~ In cases like that, the first copyright holder appears to generally > have the right to completely prohibit further publication of the second > work, unless the license he gave to the second copyright holder > precludes that. :-P Unfortunately, there does seem to be a certain > amount of fuzziness in the question of whether something is a joint work > or a derived work. :-P Hm. Clearly I need to read more about this. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
