NewFlyer153 wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:52 pm:@Lydiot
To be fair, I think those cases ought to be viewed within a separate framework, because we're not just talking about general copyright law, but the ShareAlike component of the CC license. (I know, the title is GPL, that's my fault).
Yes, but the question was about whether or not new work is derivative or adaptation of old work. I wasn't the one who brought up photos in film and I wasn't the one responding to it, but if Thorsten thinks it's a clear-cut case where including something that is under a share license means that makes the movie a share license he's just wrong about that. His response is just not reflected in reality as far as I can tell.
NewFlyer153 wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:52 pm:You're right about the de minimis doctrine with respect to copyright law:Courts will occasionally not uphold a copyright on modified public domain material if the changes are deemed to be de minimis.[16] Similarly, courts have dismissed copyright infringement cases on the grounds that the alleged infringer's use of the copyrighted work (such as sampling) was so insignificant as to be de minimis.
From Wikipedia.
Who knows, maybe it's possible to violate a license and still not be found culpable of infringement. Get that? In other words, as a matter of semantics, I make a bunch of conditions when I license my work. You violate that license, so that's license violation right there (or what could be termed unfair gain or even theft), however the legal decision could be that I'm not culpable for copyright infringement, because a bunch of judges made a number of judicial balancing acts and ruled in the defendant's favor.
Maybe that's what Thorstein means about it being black and white, meaning that the violation of the conditions of a license may be the black and white letter of the license.
Well the potential damages is one thing and if infringement occurred is another. I don't think infringement is as black and white as Thorsten says it is because we can see in those court cases that there's a discussion to be had about whether or not there was an infringement. How often was something shown? How clear was it? How relevant was it to the new work? Saying that "yes, this was a copy of this old work" doesn't actually mean it was infringement because that depends on all those other factors.
NewFlyer153 wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:52 pm:And in the case of the appellant's ten photographs used in the movie 7even, I wouldn't dismiss entirely that the producers made some unfair gain. Maybe the word "theft" is strong, but to many people it is, and I wouldn't just dismiss that notion. It does seem rather unfair if this appellant felt his property was violated and the film corporation decided not to compensate him even a little.
Well the law isn't always "fair". But the thing to consider is what a reasonable situation is overall. Imagine if every time you end up with a prior work within the frame in one of your shots in a movie or TV show etc, and that every time that happened it would void your license and you would no longer be able to sell your work for profit. If that was the case I could sabotage a production by sneaking an item into the frame and then nobody could sell that movie or show any longer. Or I'd get paid. It's simply not reasonable.
Instead it seems the law is written and interpreted in a way that is reasonable so that people can still create new art - within reason - without fearing that they get into legal trouble. And it really is as simple as paying attention to what's in frame and asking for permission if something is obviously possibly a problem.
When it comes to licenses here it seems to me that Thorsten makes some good points, I just don't know if they're built on logical arguments after what he said about movies. But it does seem reasonable that if you take something from someone else and your new work is dependent on that old work you really need to pay close attention to licensing and adjust accordingly.