Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>>What is the correct term for a work that combines two other works, >>>created without creative input? >> An anthology, or a compilation, I think. >> > > From Title 17, Sec 101: > A ''collective work'' is a work, such as a periodical > issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of > contributions, constituting separate and independent > works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. > > A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection > and assembling of preexisting materials or of data > that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a > way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an > original work of authorship. The term ''compilation'' > includes collective works. > > I don't think those are the appropriate terms; it would appear that a > compilation (including collective works) need to be original works of > authorship. That requires creative input.
Was the question concerning the term for a work consisting of other works, each in itself the product of creative work (and thus copyrightable), combined into a single work without any additional creative work, or was the question for combination of parts which are not by themselves copyrightable, combined without creative effort, or a combination of non-creative parts in a creative fashion? Producing a compilation may or may not involve creative work. For instance, in the production of a literary anthology, there may be significant amounts of work in the selection of parts to include, as well as their order. In this case, the compilation might be protected by copyright law. On the other end, a collection consisting of all works published during some specific time interval, is not the result of creative work. > If it isn't creative, it isn't a work under copyright law. See, e.g., > Fesit v. Rural Telephone Service, holdings (a) and > (b). > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=499&invol=340 This case is about a telephone directory. Quite obviously, each individual entry cannot be considered a creative work (it is an arbitrary number assigned to a name), and simply collecting all of them is not considered to add any creative element. > AFAICT, the output of the compiler is treated under copyright law the > same way the source code would be; I supect the best term we have for > this situation is "mere aggregation" of two seperate works. IOW, 'ld' > in this case is performing the same function 'tar' normally would. The compiler outputs a mechanical transformation of its input. If the input was covered by copyright, then the output will be as well, otherwise it will not. Mechanically transforming something does not add any creative value, and hence does not alter the copyright status of whatever is being transformed. Mechanically combining two works into one, as might be done by the linker, does not either add any creative element. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
