Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers

235 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

516

Amazon and Tolkein Estate force author to destroy all copies of his work. Only pirated copies will survive. (variety.com)

submitted 11 months ago by JoMiran@lemmy.ml to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

217 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

US law is on the Estate’s side

If the characters/events from LOTR are a big part of his fan fiction then the Estate can have it destroyed

Also since the author had no legal ownership of the works, there is nothing wrong with the people who have rights to it using it

[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Transformative works exist, I don't think it works like that.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The if part is what gets argued in court

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use

transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original

Fifty Shades vs Twilight would be transformative

Anderson v. Stallone

Would be the most likely case reference for this ruling where Anderson made a Rocky sequel and it was deemed infringement

[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah wow it's like I thought ( the right holder being able to dick around writers)

It was strikingly clear to the Court that Anderson's work was a derivative work; that under 17 U.S.C. section 106(2) derivative works are the exclusive privilege of the copyright holder (Stallone, in this case); and that since Anderson's work is unauthorized, no part of it can be given protection.

After he had meetings with MGM about using that script.