Does a copyright owner own infringing derived works? If a person infringes on someone's copyright by making a derivative work (like fanart for example), who owns that work? I'm aware the copyright holder can stop the work from being distributed and take it down, as well as claim damages that the derived work may have caused. This question comes from a recent controversy where Disney started selling a toy made from a 3d model that they took from a fan work made by an internet user. The 3d model seems to be clear copyright infringement as the fan didn't obtain permission and the object depicted in the model was copyrighted by Disney. They could have made him take it down and/or get paid for damages, but It's not clear to me if they can just use the work as if it was a derived work made by them. Is Disney in the right here? Does the ownership of the original work grant them ownership over these infringing derived works? If not, does the fan have a case here or does the initial infringement invalidate any claim he may have? Sorry if this has been asked before, I looked for this question but didn't find anything close enough.
To my understanding, the answer is in theory no, in practice yes. Ordinarily, non-infringing derivatives gain copyright on the creative elements contributed by that derivative's author (17 USC 103(b)). However, as I cover here, the United States has a specific statutory provision in 17 U.S.C 103(a) which bars infringing derivatives from gaining copyright (internationally, most statutes are silent on this specific scenario). So in theory, Disney does not own copyright on the derivative because no one does - no copyright was assigned to the derivative author due to its infringing nature and the elements original to that derivative are technically in the public domain (unless they are far enough removed from the original, per the wording of s. 103(a)). However, in practice Disney effectively owns the copyright. By definition of being a derivative, it contains original elements of another author's work. Disney is the rightsholder of that author's work and as such can effectively exercise the rights granted to it by copyright law on the derivative by virtue of holding the underlying original's copyright.
In a hypothetical case like you are describing, you could make a contract with them regarding the duplication of the content, irrespective of copyright law. Their violation of that contract would not necessarily be a copyright violation (which would allow statutory damages), but you might win a breach of contract lawsuit. But if someone took it from them and made copies, you would likely not have a case against that person because copyright would not protect you and you have no contract with them. In addition, you could obtain a very "thin copyright" in a particular new presentation of the material. This would mean that copyright law would apply, but only to the particular presentation (e.g. new footnotes, a particular layout, etc...) If considering doing this IRL, you should consult a copyright attorney.
The US does not provide copyright protection for font design. As long as you dont distribute font generating programs, that would themselves be copyrighted, you are not infringing. Your derived information is okay because it is derived from a non-copyrightable work and is therefore not a derivative work. https://law.stackexchange.com/a/25673/1340
There is no provision for automatically relicensing infringing works (for example, distributing a program that contains parts covered by the GNU GPL and that is therefore a derived work will not automatically place the infringing program under GPL, even if that is the expected way for derived works to comply with the license. Instead, the derived work becomes at the very least undistributable, as there are competing copyright holders that disagree.
No These are derivative works and making them is copyright breach. Doing this as a hobby or even for the entertainment of friends in private is likely fair use. Distribution or performance in public (monitored or not) is likely not fair use and you would need a licence. Here is a summary of the relevant law in australia.
For works released after 1989, Copyright notices don't have any legal consequences in the United States. They are just a friendly reminder of who created the work and that they take their copyrights seriously. But those notices are not required anymore to enforce your copyrights on the works you created. If you have proof that you own the copyright on something and when it was created, and if it's still within the term limits, then you can take legal actions against people who violate your copyright. Disney has a history of repeated worldwide lobbying for extending the expiration durations in copyright laws in order to avoid any of their classic cartoons from falling out of copyright protection. So it could be that they try to intentionally muddy the waters and make it harder to find out which of their works expire when. That way people are less sure about what Disney works are and are not in the public domain, making it more risky to use them. But that's just my theory.
If you change a single character, that's clearly a partial copy. Copyright protection has a limited extent, however. The protected work must be original and not obvious. For example, there are only so many ways to write a function that computes the average of two numbers, so the copyright owner of one body of code cannot claim infringement by the author of a second body of code simply because they both have a function float Average(float a, float b) { return (a + b) / 2; } A surefire way to avoid infringing copyright is to specify the function of the code and then have someone who has never seen the code write it from scratch. This is sometimes called clean-room engineering. Otherwise, there is no way to answer your question definitively. If you create a modified copy of the code (a "derived work" in copyright terminology), there is no strict formula available to evaluate the extent of the infringement. It comes down to a case-specific analysis of the facts by a judge. Depending on the jurisdiction, which you have not specified, there may be specific laws or judicial precedent that guide the judge, but the determination will still require a specific analysis of the facts. For example, if the alleged infringer raises these arguments, the judge would have to determine how obvious the code is, or whether the copyright claimant even owns the copyright to the code.
You can make a derivative work if: the original is not under copyright, you are the copyright owner, you hold a licence from the copyright owner that says you can, or your usage is fair use or fair dealing as applicable. For your proposal, the image is copyright, you don’t own it, you don’t have a licence and what you propose is neither fair use nor fair dealing. You can’t do it and you can be sued if you do.