What is required to transfer copyright when purchasing an original work (with out a contract)? So this is a follow on question to this. Lets say I buy an original art work (e.g., a painting, not a print) I would expect that the right to make reproductions would now transfer to myself; and would be rather upset if afterwards, the author started selling copies. I am after all paying a premium for the original. (This is assuming a non work for hire situation) Some of the answer on this state however that this is not always the case. This US copyright office circular states: The transfer[of copyright], however, generally must be made in writing... So what I would like to know is: this is then case in other Berne Convention signitories, other than the US (since I don't live in the US). Also if "generally" the transfer of copyright needs to be in writing, then what is then non general case.
The work and the copyright to the work are different property rights Buying one does not give you rights to the other. Copyright laws differ by country so its impossible to say which need transfers to be in writing and which don't. For example, the United States requires them (and also allows owners to rescind the transfer after a number of years) but in Australia, it isn't necessary and the Copyright Act makes a number of presumptions in civil actions (ss126-131) which favor the person claiming the copyright so that, in the absence of contrary evidence, their assertion will prevail.
Those posts are talking about making a modified copy of a copyrighted work. The key word is copy. You are not making a copy. Copyright is not about how a physical embodiment of a copyrighted work is treated. You can burn a book and shred a newspaper. Neither of those actions is making a copy. Also, cutting up a newspaper and pasting a picture on your wall has nothing to do with any “derivative works” issue.
Federal law governing copyright, and state and federal law governing trademark, do not make any stipulations about the person enjoying the particular property right. In lieu of a specific restriction, the person may be an alien, a prisoner, a public employee, a corporation, or an astronaut. There are limits on minors and contracts, but no contract is required to write a book, make a sculpture, or create a distinctive business mark. (Those limits potentially raise questions about a minor signing away their author's rights if they create a work for hire, which you didn't ask about. A contract is typically necessary to profit off of such a creation, but not always). The copyright office even says that you can register copyright (important, registration is necessary to get maximal protection). There is a bit of an issue that a minor has limited ability to sue (for infringement), so in Utah Rule 17 you would need a guardian to sue for you, likewise in federal court (same number!).
The creator of the derivative work has copyright in the derivative work. The copyright would protect only the new elements of the derivative work. Wikipedia is a good place to start. In the case of a book with updated grammar, depending on the extent of the changes, it would probably be easier to copy the original directly than to eliminate the updates from a copy of the derivative work.
German perspective: In German law, there is the concept of Schöpfungshöhe (threshold of originality), which is required for authorship rights (Urheberrecht) to apply to a work. Basically, the idea is that a minimum of creativity is required for something to be protected. However, that bar is rather low. Thus, for example: Literary works are protected practically always. Maps are generally protected, even though you might argue they "slavishly copy nature", because the act of choosing what to show and what not is already creative. However, a faithful photographic reproduction of a painting is not eligible for Urheberrecht to apply (LG Berlin, AZ 15 O 428/15) So yes, a "slavish copy" of a work would not qualify for protection if there is no creativity involved. Note, however, that other types of protection apart from Urheberrecht might apply, such as Sui generis database right.
The CC-ND license seems to be what you are looking for. However, Sec. 2(a) has two conditions, one allowing copying and distribution of the unmodified original (as stated in A), but also allows the user to modify but not distribute a modified version of the work (they may "produce and reproduce, but not Share, Adapted Material"). This would mean that a reader could rewrite your paper, as long as they keep it to themselves. If this bothers you, I think you could not rely on a standard named license, instead you'd have to provide your own – such as CC-ND 4.0 without clause (2)(a)(B). Rewriting a legal document is a risky proposition, even for a legal professional, because you have to carefully think through all of the implications of any new punctuation, adjectives, and deletions. If you contemplate deleting clause (2)(a)(B), you should come up with a line of reasoning that compels you do delete it in order to accomplish your goal, and check that the deletion doesn't thwart that goal. That is why people pay money to lawyers (and also why you need to make your goal clear to that lawyer, lest the agreement be inconsistent with your goal).
Without a license, you have no right to copy or distribute someone else's work. Suppose you copy or distribute against the terms of the license. Either you didn't agree to the license, and therefore had no right to do as you did; or you did agree and still violated the terms of the license anyway. By the law of the excluded middle (accepted or not accepted), you infringed either way.
This is governed by Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in India (see, e.g. here and here). In the cleanest scenario, the copyright is first registered and then transferred with a written assignment meeting multiple formal requirements of that section that is filed with the copyright registrar. The assignment document is only valid if it is written and duly signed by the assignor or their duly authorized agent or representative. The transfer of a copyright in work must recognize the work and specify the kind of rights assigned and the duration and regional extent of such transfer. Moreover, it must specify the amount of royalty payable, if any, to the author or their legal representatives during the continuance of transfer, and the transfer will be subject to extension, revision or termination on terms jointly agreed upon by the parties. If the time of transfer is not mentioned, it will be deemed to be taken as five years from the transfer date. If the regional extent of such transfer is not stipulated, it will be taken as applicable across India. Disputes over ownership of registered copyrights in India are usually handled by the Appellate Board connected to the Copyright Registrar's office, described in Section 11 of the Act, rather than by the ordinary courts.