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

Thu Aug 12 00:34:23 UTC 2004

> The intepretation that says that just because two things appear on the
> same page, they are therefore derivative works (of each other?)
> strikes me as unfounded, but I am willing to look at case law, if any
> exists.

>  --Jimbo

I don't think that's the argument, it's certainly not the one I am making.
The argument is that the web page as a whole is a derivative work of both
the image and the text.  I am almost certain that there is a case where this
exact point was decided.  But here's a quote on a similar issue, regarding
"framing":

"In Futuredontics v. Applied Anagramics, Inc . , the federal district court
for the Central District of California in 1998 denied a motion to dismiss
Futuredontics' case for copyright infringement arising from framing by the
defendant. The court found that, by placing a frame around plaintiff's web
page, the defendant was not unlawfully reproducing the copyrighted content.
Rather, the court found that the defendant's presentation of the framed page
as a whole, containing the content and the frame, could be considered an
unlawful derivative work of the original content."

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/kubiszyn-2000-04-all.html

But as I said before, the issue of whether or not a derived work is created
is not the same as the question of whether or not the derived work is
permitted under the GFDL, especially clause 7.

Anthony