[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice

Thu Aug 12 00:24:38 UTC 2004

> Imagine the following scenario.  I write a book, under traditional
> copyright.  For my book, I license some images from you, under a
> traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
> the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.

> After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
> portion of the text to a magazine.  Can you then object, saying that
> the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph?  That the two are
> no longer separate and independent?

> I don't see how that could be so.

> Jimbo

It's not so, and it's tangential to the argument.  Derived works necessarily
include the original work in them.  To quote Galoob v. Nintendo, "the
infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some
form."  Just because the combination of an image with text is a derived work
of both the image and the text that doesn't mean the image alone is a
derived work of the text.

I think your argument that this falls under clause 7 is plausible.  But case
law makes it clear that this aggregation is indeed a derived work (it just
might be a derived work which is permitted under the GFDL).  Take a look at
Mirage v. Albuquerque ART.  In that case it was decided that mounting plates
from an art book onto tiles was the preparation of a derivative work.

Anthony