Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Incubator escapee wiki:FAQ/Copyright
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Derivative works== {{shortcut|WP:DERIVATIVE}} :A derivative work is something that is "based on or derived from" another work. For example, the first ''[[Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker|Star Wars]]'' [[novelization]] is a derivative work of ''[[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]]''. Therefore, [[Del Rey Books]] required [[Lucasfilm]]'s permission to publish and distribute the book. The French translation of ''[[Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone]]'' is a derivative of the English novel. Translator [[Jean-François Ménard]] required the permission of [[J. K. Rowling]]'s agent, [[Christopher Little Literary Agency]], to prepare, publish and distribute it. :You may not distribute a derivative work of a work under copyright without the original author's permission unless your use of their content meets fair use or fair dealing (generally, a summary or analysis of something is not a derivative work, unless it reproduces the original in great detail, at which point it becomes an abridgment and not a summary). :Taking a work in the public domain and modifying it in a significant way creates a new copyright on the resulting work. For instance, the ''[[Homecoming Saga]]'' by [[Orson Scott Card]] is a re-telling of the [[Book of Mormon]]. Therefore, the books in the ''Homecoming'' series can be copyrighted. ''No Fear Shakespeare'' is a series adapting the works of [[Shakespeare]] into modern language. Even though Shakespeare's works are public domain, the ''No Fear Shakespeare'' series is protected by copyright. This is true as well of the translations in the ''[[Penguin Classics]]'' series. Although faithful translations of public domain works, they each are protected by copyright. :However, the new work must be different from the original in order for a new copyright to apply, as a US court ruled in'' [[Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation]]''. :''The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement. The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in originality. In their opinion, the Court noted: "There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify."'' <ref>{{cite web |url=http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html |publisher=EnglishHistory.net |author=Mongello, Marilee |date=2004-11-01 |title=The Right to Display Public Domain Images |access-date=2014-08-24}}</ref> :This ruling only applies to two-dimensional works. For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken. Therefore, pictures of public domain 3D works are not free unless it was created by the uploader. In addition, in some countries such as the [[United Kingdom]], [[sweat of the brow|simple diligence]] ''is'' enough for a work to be copyrightable (including reproductions of public domain works). The position of the [[WP:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] on this, however, is that any reproduction of a two-dimensional work in the public domain is not copyrightable, for otherwise the very purpose of the public domain would be defeated as to such works.<ref>[[:c:commons:Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag?diff=13030130&oldid=13028854|Statement from Deputy Director of the WMF]] "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain."</ref> :Pictures of copyrighted buildings are not considered derivative works, unless the country it is photographed in does not have [[freedom of panorama]] provisions (such as [[France]] or [[Italy]]). In United States copyright law though, "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work – but only if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."<ref>Mary Cullen Yeager and Katherine A. Golden ''[http://archive.today/2004.04.16-215647/http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/file/00106/009506 LLP: Owner vs. Architect: Who Owns the Design?]''</ref> As such, freely licensed photos of copyrighted buildings (but ''not'' photos of copyrighted artwork attached to buildings) generally can be hosted on the US-based English Wikipedia regardless of where the photo was taken.<ref>See [[Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama]] and the {{t|FoP-USonly}} licensing tag.</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)