January 4, 2012 @ 06:01am
For example: If a person alters the Mona Lisa in some way such as many people have done, do they have intellectual property rights covering their alteration?
January 4, 2012 @ 06:01am
If the changes are such that it transforms the work (and there is no definition of this; it would be a matter of opinion if it ever came to court) then the creator would own copyright for the new work.
January 4, 2012 @ 06:01am
[quote=LWilliamson]If the changes are such that it transforms the work (and there is no definition of this; it would be a matter of opinion if it ever came to court) then the creator would own copyright for the new work.[/quote]
PLEASE Keep in mind that this would need to be determined FIRST during registration of the "license to sue" called a copy[rite] in the United States as no litigation is allowed without this license to sue.
See 17 USC §[url=http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#4-11]411[/url]
See 17 USC §[url=http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#4-12]412[/url]
The copy[rite] office will not issue a "license to sue" if in their opinion the new art was not sufficiently transformative.
The copy[rite] Act has been unconstitutional since 1790 and was made more wrong in 1976 and then again in 1990 as is pending now before an Eighth Circuit panel.
January 4, 2012 @ 06:01am
Thank you for the responses so far. They are helpful!