Text and Derivative Works

Hello,

While the concept of "derivative work" seems
pretty clear to me when
applied to media such as audio, video, imaging, or source
code, I find
it difficult to comprehend it when attempting to apply it to
the idea
of written work (text), which is my main medium. Could any
body
attempt to clarify the meaning of "derivative
work" in such a context?
For instance, does the license cover the only text itself
(the
encoding, so to speak), or does it cover the ideas it
represents as
well (e.g if someone wrote a story based on a story of mine
licensed
under by-sa, would he be bound by the terms of the license?)
Would
some minor modification of the language, such as mere
changes in
punctuation and wording, suffice for one to claim the
resulting
version as "derivative work"? I like and believe
in the idea of free
culture and the work the CC licenses are doing, and I would
very much
like to be able to support it as much as I can, but I have
thus far
felt obliged to limit myself to a by-nc-nd license when
licensing
text, as I am none to sure what allowing derivation would
entail.

Any light you might throw on the matter will be greatly
appreciated,
S.M.
-- 
smassysdf.lonestar.org
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

S. Massy wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> While the concept of "derivative work" seems
pretty clear to me when
> applied to media such as audio, video, imaging, or
source code, I find
> it difficult to comprehend it when attempting to apply
it to the idea
> of written work (text), which is my main medium. Could
any body
> attempt to clarify the meaning of "derivative
work" in such a context?
> For instance, does the license cover the only text
itself (the
> encoding, so to speak), or does it cover the ideas it
represents as
> well (e.g if someone wrote a story based on a story of
mine licensed
> under by-sa, would he be bound by the terms of the
license?) Would
> some minor modification of the language, such as mere
changes in
> punctuation and wording, suffice for one to claim the
resulting
> version as "derivative work"? I like and
believe in the idea of free
> culture and the work the CC licenses are doing, and I
would very much
> like to be able to support it as much as I can, but I
have thus far
> felt obliged to limit myself to a by-nc-nd license when
licensing
> text, as I am none to sure what allowing derivation
would entail.
> 
> Any light you might throw on the matter will be greatly
appreciated,
> S.M.

Under U.S. copyright law, a "derivative work" is
any work sufficiently 
similar to the original that it would constitute an
infringing copy 
(that is, would ordinarily require the permission of the
original 
author) but which also contains sufficient new originality
to make the 
changes copyrightable.

Something based only on the ideas in the original would not
be a 
derivative work, since it wouldn't copy the copyrightable
aspects of the 
original (ideas are not copyrightable; only their particular

expression).  It would also would not require the CC license
at all; one 
can always take the ideas without permission.

Something with changes in punctuation in wording might be a
derivative 
work.  Something which had been reformatted from 80 columns
to 70 
probably wouldn't be one.  Both are, on their face,
infringing, and 
would require the author's permission.  The difference is
that changes 
in wording might be original, but that a change in column
layout almost 
certainly isn't.

The canonical example of a derivative work is a translation
into a new 
language; that involves both almost all of the protected
expression in 
the original, along with a significant amount of new
creativity.

James
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses