41

Copyright is for original pieces of work. What you have made, is essentially a derivative work. Copyright is automatic for all things, unless the author has explicitly waived their rights, normally through a license. What this means, is that you have created a piece of art, that has been derived from that of the original author. You made modifications to ...


24

Avoiding copyright infringement is a question of "How is it modified?" rather than "How much of it is modified?". What you've created is a derivative work of the original; to decide if your derivative is a copyright infringement, you need to see if your use falls under fair use or your country's equivalent. In the United States, fair use is determined by a ...


18

If the photos are exact or "slavish" reproductions of flat (2D) art, then under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) the photos are not original, and have no copyrights of their own. If the art was not under copyright (for example published before 1924) then neither are the photos. If the art is still under copyright, the ...


11

Song names, book titles, etc. can not be copyrighted. There are many examples of multiple songs/books having the same title. The ASCAP Repertory web site has dozens of songs with the one-word title "Love".


5

A GPS trace of a car's path, on its own, is unlikely to be covered by copyright in the first place. It is primarily made up of facts (the locations of roads and lanes), and there is no creativity involved in its creation. A database of facts may be protected by copyright as a compilation if there is some amount of creativity in how it is assembled, but this ...


4

According to US law according to Cornell, copyright applies to derivative works. A derivative work is an original work based on a previous work (Definitions), so the adaptations would be copyrightable unless they were held to be unoriginal. In general, the courts don't require much creativity to consider a work original. Translations are original works. ...


4

The problem is not with just the image. As you have stated, you are porting a game to a different operating system. You are, basically, replicating a game without the original author's permission. This is outright illegal. You will get a cease and desist right away when the original author founds out, and the finished product will be instantly removed by ...


4

Copyright protection is about certain acts, and not about relationships between products. Copyright law says that the creator of an original work hold the exclusive right to copy and to authorize creation of derivative works. Copyright law does not say that anybody can freely create derivative works as long as they are different to a certain extent. So if ...


3

Admission of copying proves one of the elements that the plaintiffs would normally need to prove in an infringement suit, making a law suit less risky from their perspective. This may very well invite lawsuits that would otherwise not be filed. But, this is pure speculation. Your legal rights are the same, independent of how much you choose to reveal in ...


3

Most legal way: Contact the original developer for permission to port his game (including his images). Everything else is probably illegal, because it sound like you are "copying " his work.


3

All of your works would be considered to be a derivative work. This is because your work, is based on the work of someone else's. A good test for this to see if something is a derivative work is to see whether the new work can effectively exist without the original. Most copyright laws worldwide are similar, thanks to the Berne Convention for copyrighted ...


3

"I understand that a transcript of a podcast or video is a derivative work, and only the copyright owner can authorise creating a derivative work." You've answered your own question, at least for the US and Berne Convention (Wikipedia) signatories.


3

First of all derivative works are not exactly "illegal". They are fully legal if the owner of the copyright in the original work has given permission. If no permission has been given, they may be copyright infringements. But they may fall under an exception to copyright. Under US law, the most common exception is "fair use". See this question and answer for ...


3

Short Answer Do they not qualify as "derivative works" of intellectual property of other creators and are they not illegal as such? Often they are, but not always. Sometimes they are done with the permission of the rights holders, or are sufficiently distinct to not constitute a derivative work, or are trivial enough to constitute fair use (e.g. a ...


3

It wouldn't matter if song titles could be copyrighted. (Artist names are a different story). They are always allowed to use the names referentially, or merely to reference them. I'm typing this on an Apple iPad w/ AT&T cellular data; see, no copyright violation there. It's also perfectly legal to be "cutesey" and have fun with the copyright ...


3

You may find the ShareAlike interpretation on the creativecommons.org wiki helpful here. The Examples section says: ShareAlike photo being used unmodified in a larger work. Unless the larger work would be considered an adaptation of it, using a ShareAlike photo as a separate element within it does not require original materials in the larger work to ...


2

A language, even a conlang, is not protected by copyright. A specific recording or text could be subject to copyright protection, but that site isn't obviously doing that. An analogous case arose in Paramount, CBS v. Axanar, where Paramount attempted to claim copyright ownership of the Klingon language (Paramount apparently saw the wisdom of the ...


2

For a short guide on reusing Wikipedia content, you can refer to Wikipedia itself. Here two questions arise: if the material you are using is copyrighted and if you can reuse it in a paid game. As it is stated in Wikipedia:Copyrights, "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves." Therefore, you ...


2

"Derivative work" is, in general, broader than modification. For example, a t-shirt with an image of an application's UI is a derivative work of the application. In software licenses, though, the term may be defined more specifically rather than less. For example, in the Apache license quoted by Zizouz212, you have the clause and for which the ...


2

A derivative work is, quite simply, a modification of an existing work, such that it can be reasonably assumed that the derivative work could not exist without the already existing work. Since you're talking software, let's pull out a software license! Notably, let's take the Apache license: "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or ...


2

Please note that I am not a lawyer. First of all, ideas are not copyrightable, only their expression is. Second, in order not to be plagiarism, a work has to be "transformative." That is, it has to be "different enough from the original so that one could not get directly from the original version to yours. The original author retains "translation" rights,...


2

You would not be permitted to do that. Copyright protection extends to: Works of authorship, That are original, and That are fixed in a tangible medium. Olympiad problems and standardized exams meet all these criteria and are therefore generally going to be protected by copyright, giving the author the exclusive right to make copies and to make ...


2

There is no copyright in facts. If your book is about the solar system say, then the diameter of Jupiter, the orbital period of Mars and the mass of the Sun are not things that are subject to copyright. However, the creative expression of facts (i.e. like an encyclopedia) is protected by copyright - you cannot copy the layout, format font etc. but you can ...


2

The organizer of the event might not be worried about violating copyrights (although they should) but about violating trademarks. I did not check, but I would not be surprised if "ABBA", "Queen" and "Bruno Mars" are registered trademarks. So when someone advertises an event with these names, they might be in violation of these trademarks.


2

Whoever "derived" the illegal derivative work most likely has copyright in his derivations, unless they are not worth copyright protections. Say I take the Harry Potter books and add a few chapters and try to sell it - that's copyright infringement of course, but I have the copyright on these additional chapters. However, I don't have the right to allow ...


1

Note that model contracts or templates for contracts are often sold. Once this was often done in book or pamphlet form -- now it is more likely to be in the form of downloadable digital text, or software packages that assemble the text for a legal document from pre-written sections or fragments, depending on inputs, often the answers to a questionnaire. This ...


1

Multipage contracts, like any multipage texts, will likely bear some level of originality and so they will have a copyright owner. Absent a license allowing you to reuse the text, you will not be allowed to do so. The fact that you were a party to a contract represented by the text does not change your position: your contract does not have anything to do ...


1

It depends on the nature of the questions. To the extent that the question presents a set of facts with a brief statement like "Account for these data", (a) that stub is not sufficiently creative that it is protected by copyright and (b) it is easy to express the same idea with different words, e.g. "Analyze these facts". Facts are not protected by copyright,...


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