how to copyright a derivative work [Solved]

Last updated : Sept 20, 2022

Who owns the copyright to a derivative work?

The term “derivative work” refers to the entire new creative work as a whole, not merely the new elements. The copyright ownership in the derivative work is independent of any copyright protection in the preexisting material. The copyright in the preexisting materials remains with their owner.

What constitutes derivative work copyright?

Derivative work refers to a copyrighted work that comes from another copyrighted work. Copyrights allow their owners to decide how their works can be used, including creating new derivative works off of the original product.

Can I publish derivative work?

You CANNOT distribute a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder of the pre-existing work. Unlike cover songs, the copyright holder CAN deny you permission to create a derivative work for any reason.

Do you need permission to make a derivative work?

Derivative Work Under Copyright Law § 106(2)). It is considered copyright infringement to make or sell derivative works without permission from the original owner, which is where licenses typically come into play.

Are derivative works considered fair use?

Regardless of whether work is derivative or not, it is generally considered fair use (not a copyright violation) to use someone else's intellectual property for the purposes of scholarship, education, parody, or news reporting, so long as the copyrighted work is only being used to the extent necessary.

How much can you copy without infringing copyright?

You may use up to 10%, but no more than 3 minutes, of a single movie, TV show or video. You may use up to 10%, but no more than 30 seconds, of music and lyrics from a single musical work. You must purchase performance rights to hold a live performance of a copyrighted work.

What is difference between original works and derivative works?

“Originality” means that the work is independently created and not copied from other works. Originality of a derivative work means any variation of an original work which is sufficient to render the derivative work distinguishable from its prior work in any meaningful manner.

What works are not protected by copyright?

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible medium of expression (that is, not written, recorded or captured electronically) Titles, names, short phrases and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents.

Is derivative art legal?

There is nothing illegal on its face about creating derivative works that are in fact transformative, but care must be taken to avoid potential copyright infringement claims.

How long does a copyright last?

As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years.

Who owns the copyright of a translation?

If the author authorizes a translation, the author owns the copyright in the translation since the translation is a work for hire. This is because in case of a work for hire, the employing party is the author.

Can you copyright a transformative work?

Transformative works make use of copyrighted material, but do so in a way that the resulting work is fully copyrightable. The author of the transformative work does, however, claim copyright over material in the original work, as used in his or her transformative piece.

Is a photograph of a painting a derivative work?

General Issues for Artists When an artist uses a photograph for reference, the painting or artwork is called a derivative work. While the artist can maintain some ownership over their own work, they first need permission from the original photographer to use the photo for reference.

What are the 4 fair use exceptions to copyright?

Fair use of copyrighted works, as stated in US copyright law, “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

Can 3 words be copyrighted?

Are short phrases protected? Copyright protects original works of authorship that have been independently created and that are the product of some minimal degree of creativity. Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans are generally not protected, even if they are original or distinctive.

Can 2 words be copyrighted?

Copyright protection does not extend to titles, names, slogans or short phrases, the Copyright Office has made that much very clear. You can not copyright your name, the title of your post or any short phrase that you use to identify a work.

What is a derivative work give some examples?

A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already exist- ing works. Common derivative works include translations, musical arrange- ments, motion picture versions of literary material or plays, art reproductions, abridgments, and condensations of preexisting works.

What is a derivative patent?

More Definitions of Derivative Patent Derivative Patent means any continuation, continuation-in-part, continuing, divisional, or reissue patents and applications or reexamination certificates or any foreign equivalent of the foregoing existing as of the Closing Date.

Can you copyright a compilation?

A compilation of mere facts may not be copyrighted. Instead, a compilation may only be copyrighted if there is a creative or original act involved, i.e., in the selection and arrangement of materials. The protection is limited only to the creative or original aspects of the compilation.

What are five things that Cannot be copyrighted?

• 1) Public or Commonly Known Information.
• 2) Systems or Ideas.
• 3) Titles, Names, Short Phrases, and Slogans.
• 4) Fashion.
• 5) Works Created by the Government.
• Contact a Chicago Copyright Lawyer Today.

Check these related keywords for more interesting articles :
Trademark and copyright license agreement
How to protect trademark internationally
How to sell brand items on amazon
How to design brand mantra
How to get copyright permission to cover a song
How do clowns trademark their makeup
How to update trademark information
How to check if someone has trademark a name
How do trademarks work in australia
3 ways to patent an idea in south africa
How to create brand exclusivity
Where do i see my patent in ipr ms mcq
How to oppose a us patent
How to respect copyright
How much is intellectual property worth

Write a comment

do you want to know how long a copyright lasts do you want to know whether I work that could have been copyrighted was never registered you want to know how to determine whether a copyright is not renewed do you want to know the rules for works from different foreign countries do you want to find out whether a use you have in mind would constitute fair use under the law are you going to deal with a work that has derivative works these are all subjects in this series of videos this video is on derivative works at the time that this video is being made there is debate over whether a poster that became very familiar to Americans before the 2008 presidential election was an infringement an artist named Shepard Fairey based his posters of candidate Barack Obama on a photograph produced by The Associated Press on which the artist did not seek permission and did not have authorization you are not seeing that artwork here you are not seeing that photograph here we've mocked up something that sort of looks like Shepard Fairey's artwork but uses different color schemes and most importantly is based upon a different photograph this is the photograph it's a still frame from a speech given before Congress and it was shot with the United States government's own camera that latter fact is important because it means that the American people owned the image and there is no copyright infringement involved in using it here the artwork that you can see that was based upon the photographic image was made specifically for this video and thus it does enjoy copyright but it enjoys copyright held by the maker of this particular video that means all of you watching it all of you who may receive it all of you who might simply receive an image based upon it would be infringing copyright were you not to seek and obtain permission from me now the unmodified image is an entirely different story I no more have proprietorship over this image from the United States government's camera than any other citizen therefore the rest of you are in tirely within your rights to use the unaltered image the basics are this when something is produced by the United States government it's free for anyone else to use if something is produced by a private party but copyright expires or is invalid then and only after that point in time can anyone else use it however as long as a private individual or private organization has a valid copyright they have the exclusive rights that copyright entitles them to it's not only United States presidents and candidates for the presidency who might appear on the United States government's cameras doing during the work of the United States government there are 435 congressmen and 100 senators and their work for the United States government also is not subject to copyright and their appearances on the Senate's camera the House of Representatives camera or on their congressional websites or free for citizens to use there was an image of President Obama's leading opponent in the 2008 election and here is his image Emily modified as you can see here this longtime senator representing Arizona is seen with beautiful Arizona desert colors I guess you don't have to point out that the altered image is the property of the artists who made it yeah I think so if it was a private party who did it yes indeed as with the altered Obama image you saw earlier this image of Senator McCain was made specifically for this video can we guess also that the photographic image is something that anyone can use I'm not sure you can say that the point here is that if you start with a government source image the original image would be uncopyrighted only the altered image is subject to copyright you keep saying is it the case that the original image is not a government image indeed this is an image I shot as a private citizen using my own camera while just a few feet away from the senator so the original image is protected by copyright just as the altered version is also however have a government source image been the original then the copyright status would be the same as with the Obama image shown earlier in this video the original government source version would belong to the public while the altered version is owned by the artists section 103 of the Copyright Act as it has been in effect since 1978 has a clear passage indicating the relationship between the old work and the derivative work insofar as what degree of copyright protection each is to get from the other the general thrust here is that you cannot attempt to use the newer work to make the rights in the older work last longer or come back into existence the movie the company that remade a star is born in 1954 found this out when they tried to use the copyright in the 1954 version which was a valid copyright to try to bring back copyright in the 1937 version the court didn't buy their argument the 1937 version of a star is born' had gone into the public domain and the fact that the 1954 version was still under copyright did nothing to revive the rights in the 1937 version had the copyright status of the two works been opposite had the older one still had been under copyright and the newer one been the one who have lost copyright the older work would have been the underlying work insofar as the newer work was concerned and the owners of the newer work could have used that fact and in this hypothetical situation the owners of the newer work could have told anybody who attempted unauthorized use of it hey wait a minute by copying the newer work you're violating our copyright in the older work you can't do that the movie company that would still own the rights to the 1963 film McClintock thought that they had a different case after the 1963 movie went into the public domain for lack of a copyright renewal the company thought that they could sue unauthorized use of the film on the basis of the the screenplay in the movie which they asserted was still under copyright as an unpublished work in this way the case of a star is born' is different from the case of McClintock because unpublished works involve a different rule of copyright than do published works there's an entire video in this series about unpublished works however as far as the verdict was concerned it was a star is born all over again the court reasoned the the unpublished screenplay had to some extent become published specifically those portions of the unpublished screenplay which became part of the published movie were thereby published when the movie was published therefore those portions of the screenplay could not form a basis in copyright law to prevent unauthorized use of the movie then again the portions of the unpublished screenplay which did not go into the movie remain unpublished so those parts of the screenplay do continue to enjoy copyright not that it did the movie company any good in its attempt to try to get a stranglehold over all future exhibition of the movie proving that all cases of this variety don't end up the same way and that the movie company wasn't through taking people to court they reasoned that what went into the public domain w

Thanks for your comment Kristyn Olinick, have a nice day.
- Adrian Ocampo, Staff Member

angelo lang lot's trademark and business law attorney here and this is day two of copyright week this whole week I'm talking about copyright issues I normally talk about trademarks and a little bit of patents but this week I'm focusing on copyrights just because just because I feel like it so today I'd like to talk about derivative works now we all know what a copyright is it's basically your right as the original creator to make copies of and control and reproduce your original content so it applies to any creative work that's reduced to a tangible medium so it could be you know a symphony or a play or a novel or a photograph or a sculpture or painting or an audio recording or a video recording this recording for example this video is covered by copyright law so don't y'all go copying it but today I want to talk about derivative works one of the rights that you have as a copyright holder is the right to make derivative works from your original work now what's the derivative work an example of a derivative work might be translation into another language of a novel it might be a film version of a play or a drawing of a sculpture that you created or a new arrangement of a musical composition it's basically anything that's that's new that came from the original so for example let's say that you you published a work about the history of Rome and then a few years later you had some updated material that you wanted to add to it that updated version with the new material would be a derivative work of the first version right so the copyright owner actually owns the derivative work so if for example you go and you make a photograph of someone else's original work you're committed you are committing copyright infringement as long as that work is still covered by the original copyright if you go into a musical performance and record it without their permission that is a copyright infringement if you take a photograph of you know a sculpture that could be a copyright infringement so a lot of things that we think of as normal and that we do every day are actually infringing somebody's copyright and that's actionable it doesn't have to be that there's no knowledge requirement that that we need to know that we're violating someone's copyright and they don't need to put the circle C on it this is why it's so easy to unintentionally violate someone else's copyright and I like to say that copyright violations are kind of like speeding when the cop pulls you over they don't ask you hey did you know you were speeding no they just say madam you were going 40 in a 25 here's your ticket copyright infringement kind of like that to all the copyright holder has to do is say this is my work and you copied it here's your demand for damages so it's good to be aware of things that might be copyright infringement so that you can ask hey when I when I copy this am i committing copyright infringement or is this an okay thing to do so just be aware that the things that you might be doing very innocently could very well be copyright infringement I'm Angela Lang Watson you can find me online at trademark doctor dotnet you can also like my facebook page at facebook.com forward slash trademark doctor and you'll be notified every time I go live you can also message me on that page and ask me any trademark copyright or patent questions that you want and I'll be happy to answer those I'll see you tomorrow

Thanks gukorau your participation is very much appreciated
- Adrian Ocampo

About the author

Adrian Ocampo

I've studied post-processualism at The University of Tennessee Southern in Pulaski and I am an expert in bioethics. I usually feel gloomy. My previous job was chemical equipment operator I held this position for 23 years, I love talking about composting and soapmaking. Huge fan of Jim Carrey I practice hang gliding and collect sneakers.