Court Says You Can Copyright A Cease-And-Desist Letter

So, you take a photograph of the letter, post the photograph, and claim copyright of THAT. :)

You can't do it. The photograph would be a derivative work.

So whats the rule on percentage of change for a derivative work?

In my previous post I misused the term derivative work. In fact, a derivative work is protected as long as it meets the legal standards. I may be wrong on this but as I understand it the standard is not percentage of change. The issue is whether the derivative work amounts to a "new work". Following is a quote from the copyright.gov which may help to explain it:

Derivative Works A ?derivative work,? that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an ?original work of authorship.? Derivative works, also known as ?new versions,? include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a derivative work or new version.

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a ?new work? or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

What this tells us is that derivative works which are sufficiently original to be seen as new works are themselves copyrightable. My earlier reply implied that derivative works are not protected. I've seen cases where copyright holders tried to insist that others not use derivative work based on their copyrighted material. Such demands are nice to make but unenforceable against derivative work that meets the standard.

One example of a copyright protected derivative work would be my FAQ which contained over 10 Gigs of data. On one obscure page there was a brief quote from an author who chooses to remain anonymous (he's afraid we'll go after him in court). The quote cited a method described in this newsgroup for wiring a certain type of window. The sock puppet that posted the suggestion here has complained bitterly that I "stole" his copyright material. Needless to say, his claim is as without merit as his behavior here is repugnant. The work (my FAQ) contained thousands of pages, most of them written by me over the years. It also contained, in total, text sufficient to fill two or three single-spaced, typed pages which was garnered from numerous posts here. All of the drawings were my own. All photos and text were my own or used with written permission authors of related FAQ's.

BTW, the terse quote from the anonymous poster who I nicknamed Jiminex was a few sentences. Accompanying it were images which I drew and a note to the affect that the idea came from a Usenet post whose author remained anonymous. I still have the computer with the FAQ on it but it hasn't been powered up for several years. Some day when I have time to mess with it I may try to resurrect it. The product specific pages are becoming obsolete but there are thousands of pages of installation techniques, wiring methods and so forth which are relevent today.

Another example of a derivative work is the hate website created my the late Michael Sabodish. He archived comments from numerous posters, morphed images stolen from my website and assembled them in a childish but creative attempt at harassment. While the site was more infantile than offensive, it might qualify as a derivative work. Sadly, Mike spent almost all of his energy and eventually, his life itself, on hatred and rage. If he'd directed half of that energy on something useful he'd have been rich and (possibly) still with us. I figure Jiminex and Cracker are both heading down the same path but by different means of transport. Jiminex rides only his rage but Cracker floats along on a sea of alcohol and drugs. In the end it will be the same -- two more wasted lives. AH, but I digress.... :^)

Robert L Ass, ESQ. scribbled:

Fuck you pig. I see you're giving out free legal advice again, and it's worth exactly what the readers paid for it. You just can't seem to have a discussion with anyone without bringing up your pals eh? You're pathetic. Go f*ck yourself.

G. Morgan (aka Cracker) got drunk and vomitted alphabet soup on his shirt, spelling the following:

The above is an example of an original work which would not be copyright protected. Although it is clearly Cracker's own writing, it is not sufficiently original to merit protection under the law.

A bargain at half the price.

Here we have a further example of Cracker trying to speak his mind. Sadly, there's so little source material in there that he can only mutter filth (between trips from the bar to the toilet).

Cracker is practicing for the big exam on Monday.