Scope of copyright on derivative works

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/29/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I think I understand this statement by Mr Rosen.  I will let him correct me
> if my explenation is wrong (IANAL).
>
> Suppose I write a book and include photographs copyrighted by you.  You give
> me permission to prepare the book which includes the photographs but don't
> mention sublicensing.  This permission would include an implied sublicense
> right for me to negotiate with a publisher on the publication of the

Nope. Feel free to sell copies of your book yourself. Unless my
permission did mention sublicensing, your publisher would have to ask
me for permission (and probably share his profits with me as well, not
only you). Presumably he is vey much better than you at selling books
(otherwise you would sell it yourself), so why can't I have my peace
of his cake, just like you?

"See  Leicester v. Warner Bros., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1998 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8366 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1212 (2d Cir. 2000). In
Leicester,  [**18]  a real estate developer employed an artist to
create sculptural elements for inclusion in the courtyard of a
building under construction in Los Angeles. The artist granted the
owner the exclusive right to make three-dimensional copies of the
work, and a non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial
copies. The developer allowed a motion picture company to film the
sculptural elements as part of a movie. The artist sued the motion
picture company, claiming infringement, on the grounds that the
developer did not have the right to sub-license his non-exclusive
right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. During the course
of the litigation, the developer was granted a "sub-license" by the
building's architect, who the court found to be a co-owner with the
artist of some of the elements. The court found that the architect
could not grant a sub-license to the developer because a non-exclusive
license could not be sub-licensed. Id. at *17, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8366. "

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                          -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor