Subject: RE: boilerplate for IPR

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:23:33 -0500

--On torsdag, februar 06, 2003 15:47:03 -0500 "Contreras, Jorge" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In the U.S.:
>
> Translations and revisions of a work are generally derivative works.
>
> Commentaries on a work are not generally derivative works unless they
> contain excerpts from the work.

just being problematic:

is there a well known borderline for how much you can quote without being a 
derived work?

there are "commentaries" that have 3 pages of front matter and then the 
whole text of the RFC. Are they derived works?

>JLC -- THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS THIS:  THE EXCERPTS ARE WORKS OWNED BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS.  THE COMMENTARY IS A WORK OWNED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE COMMENTARY.  THE COMBINATION IS PROBABLY A DERIVATIVE WORK OF THE ORIGINAL.

SOMEBODY PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THE "FAIR USE" CONCEPT RELATING TO EXCERPTS.  THIS IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ISSUE.  THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO A COPYRIGHT OWNER'S RIGHT TO PREVENT PUBLICATION OF HIS/HER WORKS CALLED "FAIR USE".  ONE SUCH FAIR USE IS REPUBLICATION OF SMALL PORTIONS OF A WORK IN REVIEWS THAT QUOTE FROM THE WORK.  THE LENGTH OF THE QUOTES SHOULD GENERALLY BE PRETTY SHORT, AND THE CONTEXT HAS GENERALLY BEEN LITERARY REVIEWS, NOT COMMENTARY ON STANDARDS.  WHILE I COULD MAKE A CONVINCING FAIR USE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF QUOTING FROM STANDARDS DOCUMENTS, I'M NOT SURE THERE IS LAW EXPLICITLY ON POINT.  THAT'S WHY WE ASK ALL CONTRIBUTORS TO GRANT THE IETF AND ALL PARTICIPANTS A LICENSE TO REPRODUCE THEIR WORKS.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg