[free-sklyarov] _Alice_ read aloud

[Benjamin Krueger]

I think the key point that this individual must be made aware of is that he
has not created a new and unique work. This project is clearly and unarguably
a derivative work. Further, this work is extremely easy to detach from
Carroll's original work. They're goddamned words, and the formatting of the
words does not change their meaning.

Bottom line, this is not a unique work. Ask this fellow to try his little
trick with a Harlequin novel, or one of the Harry Potter books, and try to
copyright it as a "new and unique work". Or maybe a Disney book; I'm sure
their lawyers would have a field day. Email me after he loses the lawsuit.

Benjamin Krueger
Seattle, Wa

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:58:00PM -0600, Will Janoschka wrote:
> James S. Huggins said:
>  
> > The use of new fonts, new graphics, new cover art, etc., does not restore or
> > transfer or grant a new copyright in the now public domain work.
> 
> > It does, however, create a new work.
> 
> >Peter Zelchenko (pete at suba.com) Chicago, Illinois claims:
> 
> >>I guess I would like to reiterate that this version of Alice is not
> >>public domain but is a unique new work and copyrightable.
> -snip-
>  Looks "like copyright misuse" to me.
> 
> >>Since my work can't easily be detached from Carroll's in this form,
> >>my copyright gives me the right to control its use, but I keep it open.
> -snip-
> 
>  What part of copyright law allows him privilege of control after sale?
>  
> Note from the web:
> 
>      Peter Zelchenko is president and CTO of VolumeOne,
>      a Chicago-based research and development company focusing
>      on on-demand printing of books and electronic publishing.
>      He has been involved in electronic and print media
>      publishing and design for 25 years.
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov