|
|
Posted by Wilbur Slice on 01/13/06 03:46
On 12 Jan 2006 14:08:29 -0800, ptravel@travelersvideo.com wrote:
>
>Wilbur Slice wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:20:15 GMT, "PTravel"
>> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Your original point seemed to be that you either could not get a
>> >> compulsory license for a new arrangement of a song, or that even if
>> >> you could, you could not record and sell your new arrangement nor play
>> >> it in public.
>> >
>> >My original point was that the owner of the underlying work doesn't own
>> >rights in unauthorized derivative works,
>>
>> What? Now that's something entirely new - now you're saying that if I
>> release my acoustic version of Born to be Wild, the orginal author
>> doesn't own any copyrights on the song?
>
>
>No, I didn't say that. I'm sorry that you're having so much trouble
>comprehending some fairly straight-forward statements of law.
>
>I'll try to keep it simple for you:
>
>To the extent that your acoustic arrangement of Born to be Wild
>incorporates original protectable expression by YOU, i.e. new material
>that is not subsumed within the underlying work, the original author
>does not have any ownership interest in that new material.
>
>Is that clear enough?
Only marginally, in that it's marginally different than what you said
the first time. But your first statement was that "the owner of the
underlying work doesn't own rights in unauthorized derivative works,"
In the English language, this means that the original owner doesn't
own rights in the unauthorized derivative works. Pretty hard to spin
that. But clearly that's not true: the owner DOES own the copyright
on the original song, still. That's the publishing copyright, not the
recording copyright. And since you get very indignant elsewhere about
how you weren't talking about the recording copyright, but only the
publishing copyright, I have to conclude that you are simply wrong.
But then you changed it a bit in your further explanation, saying that
the original author doesn't have any ownership interest in the *new
material*. This is correct. But that's not what you said originally.
I would think that an attorney would be more precise in his phrasing.
>
>> Of course he does.
>
>Okay, read the above carefully -- maybe discuss it with someone else,
>and when you understand what I said, come back. I'm tired of
>responding to your demands that I defend something I never said.
Interesting. This is merely a discussion on usenet, and you get this
indignant and "tired" after 2 or three posts. Usually that means the
"tired" person can't actually back up his statements with calm,
rational and logical arguments, and instead resorts to this sort of
dodge.
Okay, whatever.
>
>
>> And what
>> is an "unauthorized" derivative work?
>
>This is basic copyright law: The right to prepare derivative works is a
>reserved right pursuant to US copyright law. If you don't have
>permission, you've committed copyright infringement. There are some
>exceptions, e.g. compulsory licenses, fair use, etc.
Actually, a compulsory license isn't an exception to the permission
rule - it *is* permission. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
>> >>
>> >> Your new point, if I understand it, is that if I did that, I wouldn't
>> >> have copyright protection of my deriveed work.
>> >
>> >You don't understand it. Read again what I wrote.
>> >
>> >> But that's half true
>> >> and half false. There are two copyrights at work here: the copyright
>> >> on the song itself, which would remain with the original author, and
>> >> the copyright on my recording of the song, which would be mine.
>> >
>> >We weren't discussing the copyright in the recording. We were discussing
>> >the derivative work which consists of an arrangement of a protectable work
>> >of expression produced pursuant to a compulsory license.
>>
>> Actually, you just said "copyright" and it was not clear that you were
>> excluding the recording copyright.
>
>It was clear to everyone but you.
And how do you know that? Especially given that in your original
argument it appears you *were* talking about the recording copyright.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|