Does derivative works law allow someone to create a new work based on an old one as long as they make modifications? How can I find out if extracting Microsoft Word 2019 thesaurus (for another person by a freelancer) is legal or (very likely) not? I tried searching in Google, but this question seems to be not very easy to answer. The client says that it is allowed by a &quot;derivative works law&quot;, and that he is allowed to create a new thesaurus based on an old one, and he will be adding more words to it and taking some out.
Your client is confused about how copyright law works (at least in the United States and virtually every other country I've ever heard about copyright in). If I were guessing, they read something like this from the United States Copyright Office: The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party. and figured that because it's a derivative work, the copyright only covers the additions and changes they make, and there's no copyright protection for the original work. This misunderstands the law: the original work still has its own copyright (assuming it hasn't expired), and permission from the holder of the copyright on the original work is required to create that derivative work in the first place*. The copyright on the derivative work is separate—that is, both copyrights exist in parallel. * Some exceptions, such as fair use, exist, but would be unlikely to apply to the situation you describe.
First of all derivative works are not exactly "illegal". They are fully legal if the owner of the copyright in the original work has given permission. If no permission has been given, they may be copyright infringements. But they may fall under an exception to copyright. Under US law, the most common exception is "fair use". See this question and answer for more on fair use. But particularly relevant in this case is that a parody is usually a fair use, although as in every fair-use decision, there is pretty much no clear-cut, hard&amp;fast rule on what is and is not fair use. In the UK and much of the EU (or maybe all of it, I am not sure) there is a somewhat similar concept known as "fair dealing". It is also an exception to copyright. So it is possible that such works fall under fair use, fair dealing, or another exception to copyright, or that the rights-holder has given permission. Secondly, copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime, under most circumstances. It is enforced when, and only when, a copyright-holder chooses to take action, sending a take-down notice or copyright complaint, of filing suit for infringement. Some rights-holders choose as a matter of policy not to take such actions, thinking that such derivative works actually benefit them. That is their choice to make. Some rights-holders don't have the time or money to track down and take action against most infringements, and will only act if they think the derivative work will in some way cost them a lot of money or harm their reputation. Some rights-holders may just not have heard, yet, of specific possible infringing derivative works. As for Acta2, it has not yet been approved, the Wikipedia article linked in the questions says: In order for the text of the directive to become law in the EU, it must be approved by the European Council on 9 April 2019 The article also mentions significant continuing opposition. If it is approved, it is not clear, to me at least, how it will affect sites hosting such content, nor how it will interact with the copyright law of individual EU nations. If approved, it will no doubt take some time before enforcement is widespread. And of course it will only apply when EU law applies. If both site and author are outside the EU -- say if both are from the US -- it seems that it could not apply.
You cannot create derivative works without permission of the copyright holder (even if you create it and keep it to yourself). Further, you cannot distribute derivative works without permission of the copyright holder. That's a general principle that always applies. Since there is a license, you need to read that license carefully and determine under which conditions you have permission to create derivative works, and to distribute them. Your book would be considered a derivative work. In some situations, like commenting on a work, parody and some others, you would have a defense if you are quoting tiny parts of the work. But generally, if you find it unfair that your 200 page needs to be licensed because you used two pages from an open source source, you either do without those two pages, or you find the author and ask for permission under a different license. Note that facts are not copyrightable. So if the wikipedia page contains facts and isn't just made up, you can read it ten times, memorise all the facts, and maybe tell the facts to someone who you pay to write a similar article.
This answer to a related question sums up the relevant concepts regarding work for hire. Since, according to your description of your relationship to A, you are not an employee (Commun. for Non-Violence (CCNV) v. Reid 490 U.S. 730), and you do not a written agreement, under US law, this would not be a work for hire: thus you hold copyright to something. I presume Company A gave you the source code and you are rewriting it to fit some technical requirement, so you have been given permission by the copyright holder to create a derivative work. You do not gain copyright to the original code: you only hold copyright to what you wrote. You would therefore need the permission of the copyright holder (of the original program) to sell copies of the modified program (currently A, company B in the future once the transfer is complete). There isn't a special "signing-over" ceremony for permission to copy, but the situation you describe is very messy. Even without a written agreement, you do understand that they intend to make multiple copies of the resulting program which includes your contribution, and you have received something of value in exchange for your contribution. So, one would argue, you have at least given permission to copy your stuff, even without a piece of signed paper -- in hiring you, you have given them an implied license to use what they paid you to create. The unclarity would be in whether you transferred your property rights, or simply licensed them to use it. Hence the recommendation to get an IP attorney.
Derivative Works under US law and the Berne Convention US Copyright law defines &quot;derivative work&quot; in 17 USC 101 as: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. Article 2 of the Berne Copyright Convention reads, in relevant part: (3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work. Under 17 USC 106 one of the things that a copyright owner has the exclusive right to do or authorize is: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; Note that under the US definition, a derivative work is one based on an earlier work, not one that merely refers to a derivative work. Merely mentioning or citing a previous work is not enough to make the later work derivative. It must, in some substantial way, use and be developed out of the previous work. The classic examples of a derivative work are: a translation into another language; an adaptation into another medium or form (such as making a novel into a play or film); and making a sequel. But derivative works can be derivative in various other ways. Examples from the Question Let us look at the examples mentioned in the question: an academic paper that cites or refers to other papers This is a mere reference and is not at all derivative. However a paper that contained little or no original content, but consisted almost entirely of such citations might be considered derivative. a discussion thread on Internet (or each comment or reply on it) about a work Discussion or criticism of a work, or a reply to it, is not normally considered derivative. Such comments are not derivative of the work under discussion, nor of the previous comments. Quotations of either are likely to be permitted fair use, and so not infringing, although that will depend on the exact details of each case. a fanart or a fanfiction This is likely to be a derivative work, depending on how much of the source work is used, and whether distinctive details are reproduced. Note that ideas cannot be protected by copyright. (See 17 USC 102(b) for this.) So the idea of a person who turns into an animal of a particular type, or has some special power or ability or characteristic is not protected by copyright. But the details expressed in the source work, such as the mannerisms or appearance of a character, or the specific nature of a setting, can be protected, and to draw on them may be infringement, unless fair use applies. metadata &quot;Metadata&quot; is a very general idea. Typically the kind of information included in metadata is not protected by copyright, but in some cases it may be. a review or a criticism A review, criticism of, or comment on an existing work is not normally considered a derivative work. Quotes used in a review or criticism are often protected by fair use under US law, but if the quotation is excessive, and particularly if it allows the review to serve as a replacement for the original and to harm the market for the original, it may be infringement. a work inspired by other works Again, this depends. If only the general idea is imitated, then the later work is not derivative If detailed, distinctive, and specific characters, settings or plot lines are imitated, then the later work may be considered derivative, and infringing if permission is not obtained. The Nichols Case In the case Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F. 2d 119 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (1930) Judge Learned Hand, a famous judge, wrote a very influential and often cited opinion describing when two similar plays are, and when they are not, infringements of one another. It is worth reading to better understand this issue, even though it is over 90 years old. What makes a Work Derivative So in general a work is derivative when it uses significant, distinctive, and detailed elements of a previous work, or is a revised or altered version of the previous work. Copyright in a Derivative Work If a derivative work is made with proper permission, or the source work is out of copyright, the author of the derivative work has copyright in all the original parts of the derivative work. However if the derivative work is infringing, and was created without permission, the author has no valid copyright in it at all. Fair Use and True Parody If a work is held to be a fair use of the original, it is not infringing even if it is a derivative work, this is an exception to copyright in US law. It may still be important to note that the work is derivative, because the author has copyright only in the original aspects. If a work is a parody, it is likely to be held to be a fair use. Note that in copyright law a true parody is a work that comments on the source work by imitating or mocking it. A work that imitates a source work merely to be funny, or to comment on general social conditions, or to make some other point, but not to comment on the original, is not a parody in US copyright law. Courts often refer to such a work as a &quot;satire&quot;, even though this is not the standard literary definition of &quot;satire&quot;. A Satire will usually not be a fair use of the source, or if it is, it will be for other reasons. Addition (in response to an addition to the question) original work : poem &quot;Eloisa to Abelard&quot; by Alexander Pope(1688-1744) (potential) derivative work : film &quot;Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind&quot; directed by Michel Gondry The film's title is a quotation from the poem, and the quoted part is cited within the film. Does it make the film a &quot;derivative work&quot; of the poem? No. First of all, any copyright on the poem has long expired, it is in the public domain. Secondly, merely referring to a previous work in the title and citing it in the body does not make the later work derivative, it is merely a literary reference. A significant part of the earlier work would need to be used to make the film derivative. Unless much more was used than is mentioned above, this would not qualify even if the poem were still in copyright. Meaning of &quot;Derivative&quot; Like many other words of the English language, the word &quot;derivative&quot; has several different senses. The sense leading to the definitions: imitative of the work of another person inspired or motivated by something is mostly used in the context of criticism and review of works of art or literature. In copyright law, &quot;derivative&quot; is a technical term, defined by the definition section of the law, and by previous court cases. It is not unrelated to the meaning from literary or art criticism, but it is specific and by no means the same. The word &quot;derivative&quot; also has other specialized meanings, for example in chemistry, and in mathematics.
If you used some creative work of mine without my permission (I'm the copyright holder, and you have no license giving you permission) then I can sue you to make you stop using my work, to get payment for damages, and to get payment for statutory damages. If you used my work because someone else told you wrongly that you had a license, that's very unfortunate for you, but is no reason why I wouldn't or shouldn't sue you. Obviously in this situation that third party did something badly wrong. I can sue both of you together to make sure that I get payment from whoever has deeper pockets. You can also sue that third party if you think that their lying, or being mistaken, about a non-existing license caused you damages, or if there is a contract or something that makes them responsible.
If users were to copy dictionary definitions, for instance Oxford or Cambridge) and make the word lists public, is it a copyright infringement? If the dictionary entries are protected by copyright then your user has infringed that copyright by posting the dictionary entries. Am I responsible for this activity? No. But you may be responsible for removing it if you get a request. Can dictionary owners charge me against copyright issue? If you follow the procedures outlines in the DMCA you can be protected from liability.
If you own the copyright (because you wrote the book), you can do whatever you want with it. If someone else has the copyright, you have to get their permission to do what you propose. That could be the author, the author's estate, or some other party. It then depends on what the interest of the rights-holder is: they could say "No way!", "Sure, for a payment of $100,000", "At $1 per copy, here is how you must keep track of copies", "Okay, as long as you include this notice that prevents further re-distribution" or "Huh, I never thought of that. Sure, I grant you complete license to do whatever you want". A publisher is relevant only when the publisher requires a transfer of copyright to the publishing company, or if the rights-holder has granted them a certain type of license (e.g. an exclusive license). If the author has granted someone else an exclusive perpetual right to distribute, then they cannot also grant you a license to distribute for free. That is really the author's problem, though, since the publisher doesn't hold the copyright so can't sue you, instead the publisher would sue the author for breach of contract.