|
|
Posted by Lee Hollaar on 01/12/06 17:14
In article <Hx_wf.82540$tV6.37370@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> writes:
>I've always been curious about the application of Section 103 (though not so
>curious as to research it ;) ) -- if someone prepares an unauthorized
>derivative work, it is obviously infringing. What happens if the owner of
>the copyright of the underlying work attempts to use the unauthorized
>derivative work in such a way as to implicate one of the reserved rights?
>Section 103 appears to suggest that the author of the derivative work has no
>legal recourse (at least in copyright), and the owner of the copyright in
>the underlying work gets a free pass with respect to infringement.
See Section 3.06 of Nimmer on Copyright and Sobhani v. @radical.media,
257 F.Supp. 2d 1234 (C.D. Cal. 2003). While the court found that
Sobhani's unauthorized copying of a Burger King commercial prevented
him from suing Burger King's advertising agency when it produced a
commercial similar to a "spec" commercial he had sent them, Nimmer
tries to limit the result to conform to his view that such works
prepared to get business should be exempted from 103(a).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|