RE: Derivative works?

[Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>]

I believe the original reference was to derivative works created 
by third parties, not the author. At least that's the way i read 
the question.

Sandy Thatcher


>I'm sure all publishers recognise that one of the most important
>things authors want is to be able to repurpose their articles
>into more substantial works, or indeed for teaching purposes, and
>IMHO any enlightened author/publisher agreement ensures that they
>can do so - without having to ask permission first
>
>See, for example, the ALPSP model agreement on their website
>
>Sally Morris
>South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
>Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Diane Gurman
>Sent: 19 January 2011 00:42
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: Re: Derivative works?
>
>Hi Julie.
>
>Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines derivative works as
>follows: 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". A
>research paper that cites a copyrighted work would not be
>considered a derivative work under this definition.
>
>Diane Gurman
>Librarian I
>County of Los Angeles Public Library