|
|
Posted by ptravel on 01/13/06 00:58
Lee Hollaar wrote:
> 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).
Thanks.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|