On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Fernando Rodriguez <frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com> wrote: > > The point I was trying to make is that just like the email would be useless > unless I have a Quran so will a program be useless without the library it > depends on. I did say it wasn't a very good analogy.
Arguably the library is also useless without the program that links to it. I don't think whether something is useful on its own really is a factor in establishing that it is a derived work. Rifftrax is generally considered to not be a derived work of the movies it is associated with. And yet, it is of limited usefulness on its own. At least, it is no more useful than a program is without its linked library (a program without its linked libraries could possibly be useful in some ways). >> >> That program would not be a derivative work of the Mona Lisa. The >> picture it displays would be a derivative work of the Mona Lisa. The >> analogy isn't perfect, but it is decent. >> > > Yet just about everyone would agree that if I fireup gimp and edit the picture > and save it as a jpg would be a derived work. But for an end user there's no > difference. The difference is only in the implementation. Both files contain > binary code, one is interpreted by the cpu the other by an image viewer. One > is statically linked to the original work the other dynamically. The analogy still holds. Gimp isn't a derived work of the Mona Lisa. Your email telling me to draw a mustache on top of it isn't a derived work of the Mona Lisa. Even a picture of a mustache stored in a file with the same dimensions of your picture of the Mona Lisa positioned so that it ends up right over her lips isn't a derived work of the Mona Lisa. It isn't a derived work until you actually save it. In the same way a kernel module isn't a derived work of the kernel. The combined kernel+module image in RAM would be. > > If this does goes to court a judge will have to determine if the letter of the > law still serves it's intended purpose if it doesn't (and it obviously > doesn't) then it's obsolete and the loophole needs to be patched. There is plenty of history to suggest that derivative works were never intended to cover references. A SparkNotes for a book can comprehensively reference passages in a book and discuss every aspect of its plot and is not considered a derivative work of the book. Rifftrax is completely synced to the audio/video for a movie and is not considered a derivative work. I don't think this is a loophole. The purpose of the derivative works clause of copyright was so that I couldn't add one line to the kernel and call it an original work and redistribute the whole thing under my own copyright. That would be a derivative work. I can't even run the thing through ROT13 or gzip and call it an original work - it is just an adaptation that still contains most of the content of the original in some way. In the statue derivative works are works which contain substantial portions of the original in some way. A kernel module doesn't contain much of the kernel at all. It just contains some symbol names. Similar arguments are made about fan fiction, and that is also an area where the law has not been fully tested. If I write a completely original story that includes "Harry Potter" as a character most would argue that it is fair use at worst as far as copyright is concerned. If I write an extra chapter that is intended to go in the middle or end of a Harry Potter novel, I'd probably be on similar ground. While cases around situations like these haven't been fully tried in court, so far most indications are that courts have been reluctant to uphold copyright claims against works like these, and decisions to the contrary have mostly been reversed on appeal. -- Rich
