30

Under U.S. law (17 U.S. Code § 101 ) A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work ...


25

Your client is confused about how copyright law works (at least in the United States and virtually every other country I've ever heard about copyright in). If I were guessing, they read something like this from the United States Copyright Office: The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the ...


22

I have read the Heinlein books you cite many times, and seen the movie Gattaca once. I do not think Gattaca is a derivative work of either or both novels. The concept of faking an identity in order to get a desired job is a very common trope, both in SF and in general literature. The kind of faking done in the movie is not very similar to the deception in ...


16

Each country has its own copyright law, but the majority of countries have signed the Berne Copyright Convention, and most of those that have not, have joined the TRIPPS agreement, which includes most of the same provisions. See Wikipedia for a list of those countries that do not adhere to Berne. Bangladesh is not on the list. The Berne Copyright Convention ...


8

It depends on the terms of the licence You can do X until I tell you to stop You can do X as long as Y You can do X forever are all valid licences. For the website you name, the licence is “worldwide, non-exclusive, permanently, irrevocable, royalty-free”.


7

There seems, to my ear, to be a degree of similarity between the first two works. The third does not sound, to me, very similar to either of the first two. That is not a legal question, and I am no expert. However, all of these seem to be simple themes of only a few notes, repeated, in one case with some variations. The history of music is replete with ...


7

With reference to the law of Bangladesh, you are probably safe from legal action: see Chapter 13, which defines infringement in terms of making unpermitted copies, not acquiring them. Under §79, your copy can be taken, but there is no statutory provision for penalizing you for possession of an infringing copy. Since Bangladesh is a common law regime, there ...


6

The client is mistaken. There is no such thing as "derivative Works law", at least not in the sense that the client suggests; there is only copyright law. US Copyright Law 17 USC 106 says: Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... (2) to ...


6

united-states Functionality in general is not protected by copyright, although it may in some cases be protected by a patent. As the question noted, there are many IDEs and creating another one generally similar to those is not a violation of anyone's IP rights. The "look and feel" of a piece of software has been held by US courts to be protected ...


5

Unless the "old" movie is so old that its copyright has expired (prior to 1926 in the US currently, I believe, the precise rule varies by country) or it entered the public domain in some other way (unusual), it is protected by copyright. One may use part of a copyrighted work only with permission from the copyright owner, unless an exception to ...


5

There's a legal issue, and a practical issue. If you witness a crime, you can inform the police and something may happen. The FBI does actually investigate criminal copyright infringement, but they also don't respond to concerned-citizen complaints, only complaints of copyright holders (and not all of them). You cannot use DMCA takedown to get the service ...


5

No, it isn't. A sound recording of a song has a few different elements that are distinct from one another, but they are each protected by copyright (unless the song is old enough to have passed into the public domain): the lyrics the melody and other aspects of the musical composition the instrumental arrangement the recording itself A sound recording is ...


5

There is no copyright in an idea. A retelling of a story could be a derivative work, and the making of it a violation of the author's rights to authorize the creation of derivative works (17 USC 106 in US law. article 2 of the Berne Copyright Convention). However, the originals of most "fairy tales" are long out of copyright, and new versions of ...


4

Derivative works add protection, they don't remove or replace any. If work X is created by A, then A gets protection for unauthorized use of X. If work Y is created by B as a derivative of X, then: A still has protection for unauthorised use of X, including as part of Y B gets protection for unauthorised use of Y +--------------------------+ | Derivative ...


4

Under US law, and I believe under the laws of most countries, each of the various photographs of the apple would be protected by copyright. Thew initial owner would be the photographer, or perhaps the photographer's employer, in each case. Copyright protects expression, including both words and image. It does not protect ideas. The idea of an apple is not ...


4

"License" means permission. Once you've given someone permission to use a work, they have permission. Unless there were qualifications in the original permission, you can't take permission away by "re-permissioninng".


3

Every common free-content license has a clause specifying that it's irrevocable. Sure, the content creator could sue, but an even-halfway-competent lawyer could point at that clause and get the suit dismissed, with an order for the content creator to pay the defendant's legal costs.


3

What stops “free content” creators from suddenly making their content copyrighted, and suing everyone who has used their previously free material? Simple: they can't "suddenly make their content copyrighted". Content is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is created. (Assuming it meets the threshold of creativity required for copyright. If it ...


3

Plagiarism only marginally intersects copyright infringement. If I take an article published by Jones in an obscure journal and publish it to another journal under my name, with some light paraphrasing, that is both plagiarism and copyright infringement. If I publish that article under Jones' name, that is copyright infringement and not plagiarism. If I ...


3

Sound recordings can be, and new ones normally are, protected by copyright. The copyright would usually be held by the person who made the recording, or that person's employer, not by the speaker if that is a different person. Use of such a recording without permission might well be copyright infringement. But more clearly and directly, broadcasting a ...


3

Wikipedia, at least the English-language edition of Wikipedia, takes the position that what applies to it is US copyright law. Under that law, anything published in 1924 is now in the public domain, and anything published first in the US, or simultaneously in the US and another country with no copyright notice prior to 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 ...


3

This is a surprisingly complex question, with several aspects. There is the question of what jurisdiction's law to apply, there is the question of copyright, and there is the question of personality rights, also known as a right of publicity. Whose Laws The question says: Since the performer lives in the US, US law is applicable. This is generally ...


2

Of course it’s protected It’s an original artistic work.


2

The example that comes readily to mind of "plot similarity as copyright infringement" is "Fistful of Dollars" being an old-west copy of Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" samurai movie. Reportedly settled for 15%. But that wasn't a couple of ideas, that approached a scene-by-scene remake. Legal merits aren't the only possible reasons to ...


2

A license is permission given by the copyright holder to someone who would not otherwise be legally able to use the content lawfully. Since the holder may freely use his or her own content in any way, a license to oneself is superfluous, and does not bind the owner. This is similar to the fact that one can put up "No trespassing" signs on one's ...


2

For copyrights, the answer is simple. Copyright does not apply to ideas, only to concrete expressions of ideas. Also, copyright does not apply to "products", only to creative works. (With the added weirdness that computer programs were shoehorned in as "kinda-sorta works of literature".) So, unless your product is, say, a poem or a song, ...


2

In criminal law we might talk in terms of a number of "counts" of an offence. E.g. "the defendant is charged with 4 counts of copyright infringement". However you've asked about civil law copyright infringement, so that isn't relevant. If you are sued, the claimant is not seeking to convict you of X number of offences. Instead, they are ...


1

Copyright does not protect ideas at all, only ways of expressing ideas. If you did nor copy from nor imitate an existing document, design, or image there should be no copyright issue. Patents are searchable. Here is a search form for the US patent office. You can also pay a search firm to run a patent search,


1

Technically this is copyright infringement, because you are making a copy of the text, or a significant part of it. Or more exactly it would be in soem countries, but not others. In some countries "personal use" is an exception to copyright, and in those countries making such a copy for your own use would be lawful and not infringement. The US ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible