Re: derivative works (was: Licensing question about the BSD)

On 18 Aug 2005 15:17:12 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brlspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Isaac <isaac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> On 16 Aug 2005 14:22:25 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brlspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated.
>> > In the sense I'm using "modified", a naked statue remains unmodified
>> > when clothing is draped over it.  An artist might think differently.
>> 
>> I would find calling such draping "adapting" to be a stretch of both the
>> ordinary and the legal meaning of the work.  Using a statute as a clothing
>> rack is adopting but not adapting.  Now if instead you had to twist one of 
>> the statutes arms around so that draped clothing would not fall, you've
>> done some adapting.
> 
> In the ordinary sense, the clothing adapts the art to a new purpose,
> changing its character.  The statue isn't a clothing rack.  As to the
> legal meaning, I don't particularly care, as my argument doesn't hinge
> on that one word.  What I'm saying is that it's unwise to assume that
> because you haven't modified the original, that there's no derivative
> work.
> 
> The U.S. Copyright office agrees with me:
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#examples
> 
> "Sound recording (long-playing record in which two of the
> 10 selections were previously published on a 45 rpm single)"

I think they are saying that the 10 song compilation is derivative
of the original 2 song compilation and not that the individual
selections copied unto the LP have become derivative works of the
individual selections on the single.

Isaac