Concurrent Licenses?

[Richard Watts]

On Wednesday 12 April 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
<rod at cyberspaces.org> wrote:

>Yes, it is a definitional rule of copyright law. Derivative works, by
>definition, are copyrighted works of the original copyright holder.

[ IANAL, but.. ]

 Really ? That might be the rule in the US, but in the UK, AIR, both
the original copyright holder (A) and the maker of the derived work
(B) have an interest (provided the derivation is non-trivial in the
copyright sense), so although A can stop B doing any of the
restricted acts to the derived work, B can similarly stop A (however,
I can't find any authority on this either way just at the moment).

 Of course, the typical tactic in these situations is to force
delivery up of the rights in the derivation as part of the settlement,
but it was a nice try :-).

[snip]


Richard.