B holds no right to a copyright, if his work infringes on A's right to X. So he can't win against A and neither C or lawfully demand a C&D from C.
Note that any change to a work - even a single stroke or word - makes something a derivative work.
However, even if B's work was licensed or fair use and thus doesn't infringe on A's right, C still doesn't ...
If not, how can I keep the game's name in the app title?
Pay them a licence fee. Of course, they may not be willing to licence their trademark to you or you may not be willing to pay what they ask - that’s their prerogative; you can’t force people to sell you their stuff.
Hasbro’s, sorry, I mean [CROSSWORD GAME NAME] owner’s lawyers, have explained the ...
In California, 70 years
This is statutorily determined by the Celebrities Rights Act passed in 1985. Before that, such rights were not inheritable following Lugosi v Universal Pictures.
California law applies because Reagan was a California resident at the time of his death.
As to the extra question: any cease and desist directed at C should come from A.
Because a derivative work contains additional original material, the derivative portion is separately copyrightable. But the right to create derivative works belongs exclusively to the holder of the original copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 106. That original holder can transfer some or ...
No for other reasons. Whether B infringed on someone else’s copyright or not, B has the copyright on their changes. If C copied B’s modifications, B could sue C (and A could obviously sue B and C). But C removed all of B’s changes, so B’s copyright is not infringed. A can obviously sue.
This is similar to giving a hammer and needing to state to one is not responsible if the taker uses it to hit their head with.
I believe this is the wrong analogy to use here. It would be more like giving somebody a hammer and saying you are not responsible if the head flies off and injures you.
There is a concept in "things" you obtain called &...
Yes. There definitely lies copyright on any database established in the EU. A word frequency list is a database, and has a 15 year sui generis copyright. This also includes derivative works.
lightly remixing the wordlist counts as a derivative work, and falls under copyright protection.
The answer provided by "user6726" is incomplete. While ...
Note that even when database rights apply, this doesn't prevent someone else from performing the same analysis and coming up with an equivalent database.
I think Anon gives good advice on this question, the only change I would make is in reference to the above.
It is in the nature of copyright (unlike patent) that independent creation cannot be an ...
It is not clear, until the parties make it clear, though individual states may have partially answered the question. There may be a requirement for the business to clearly delimit what they are laying claim to. So if there are clauses exempting works created by the employee wholely on their own time, not using company property including confidential trade ...
You're largely correct, though there's some vocabulary you're using that could go either way in terms of proper understanding. My comments on your understanding, presuming we're dealing with two Berne countries (UCC is largely irrelevant these days):
My understanding of copyright is that it grants the author an exclusive right to distribute their work in ...
There is no copyrighting names
There are personality rights and trademark issues
Personality rights are easy - Nietzsche is dead, he doesn’t have any.
Trademarks (which can be registered or common-law) apply to business usage and are limited by geography and product time. If no one is already using the name for your product in your market, you can.