54

The name can not be copyrighted, but they don't own the rights to the songs and they are telling you they will perform them. They don't want to put it in writing that they are performing songs they legally can't.


42

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 ...


23

No you don't. There are two copyright holders regarding the derivative work: yourself, for creating the original. the other artist, for creating the modified version. The other artist has received the right to use your original through the CC-BY license, under the condition that they attribute you appropriately. However, you have not received any rights to ...


19

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 ...


10

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".


10

No, you do not The answer by user amon is correct that there are always two copyrights involved with any derivative work. The copyright of the author (creator) of that work, and the copyright of the source work. The holder of the source work has the right to approve the making of the derivative work, and can refuse permission or charge a fee for granting ...


6

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 ...


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

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 ...


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

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 ...


3

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 ...


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

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

"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. ...


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

That is definitely a derivative work You can’t do that without permission One of the rights that copyright gives is the exclusive right to decide who can make derivative works.


3

As Polygnome points out in the comments, the first step is to determine who owns the original copyright on your mother's work now. This will be her heirs. If you are the sole heir then no problem. If the copyright was explicitly left to you in her will, also no problem. If there are multiple heirs and no explicit assignment of the copyright, then problem. ...


3

This topic came up as a sub-point to another question a few weeks ago, I ended up doing a fair bit of research with not much in terms of concrete results. I'll start with the USA since they're basically the only major copyright jurisdiction for which I could find a straightforward answer, then discuss internationally. USA In the USA, Bob would generally not ...


3

Was the studio [grossly] negligent in granting Director Bob the artistic leeway clause and not checking up on changes when it was bound to the contrary by its contract? The studio (or its agent/representative, per your subsequent edit) was even reckless for agreeing to artistic leeway despite knowing that the production ought to adhere to Alice's script. ...


3

Ultimately whether one work is derivative of another is a question of fact, and there is no absolute rule beyond taking it to a court. Many cases are clear. A Full translation is obviously a derivative work, The definition in 17 USC 101 is: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, ...


3

No. Let's suppose you made a piece of music lasting 5 seconds. Then someone else added another 7 seconds to it, creating a larger work lasting 12 seconds. You fully own your 5-seconds piece, and can use it as you please. The second author only owns 7 seconds of his 12 second piece, and relies on your license to use the initial 5 seconds. They will have 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 ...


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