Concurrent Licenses?

[W. Yip]

Thanks to Rod's clarification, it appears my concurrent licenses argument
is tenuous, if not a myth.

I erstwhile went on a wild goose chase searching for some rules on
'derivative works'. In the UK, this are called 'adaptations'.

s.21(2) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 states...'The doing of [any
exclusive acts restricted by copyright] in relation to an adaptation of the
work is ALSO an act restricted by copyright in a literary, dramatic or
musical work.'

taking my former example, as where A distributes to B distributes to C.

I cannot find anywhere in the act saying that A OWNS copyright to B's
derivative/adaptation. However, since derivatives are similarly restricted
I suppose this amounts to the same. Namely, Rod is correct, that A's
license to the final recipient, C, is the operative license (despite the
lack of bilateral dealing). It seems to follow that only A, as copyright
owner of the adaptation as well as the original content, can bring an
action.

Might I suggest to UK lawyers that B, who authored the derivative bits, can
be construed as an equitable owner, and may thus bring an action under
equity?

Further, infringement of an adaptation automatically involves infringment
of the work on which it is based. s.76 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988 provides for the converse that if an act is permitted in relation to
an adaptation then it is also permitted in relation to the work from which
the adaptation was made. Thus, this sounds consistent with copyleft.