It seems to me the compulsory license issue is that yes, Coulton violated the terms of compulsory licensing (or rather, that his compulsory license did not provide a license to do what he did), but because he did that, the rest of the compulsory licensing terms -- including the part that says a compulsory licensed work is not subject to derivative work protection -- is therefore invalid.
In other words, Coulton infringed on Warner (Mix-A-Lot's copyright holder), *by making a derivative work*, which a compulsory license does not provide license to do.
But that's Warner's issue, and *NOT* Fox's. Fox has no standing in that question. Fox is still liable for infringing Coulton's derivative work, even if that derivative work was itself infringing.
Unless an infringed work is ineligible for such protection. (I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.) But Fox is not in a position to assert that such work is infringing. Unless Fox can convince Warner to sue Coulton over his version, that question is not resolved and (afaik) we must assume that the work is *not* infringing until the copyright holder or their representative sue Coulton to make that determination. IANAL, but boy do I wish I was.
Where is my army of nerd lawyers, I ask you? You need a website defaced or taken down, just call 4chan. You need to win a court case you deserve to win, who you gonna call?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by romulusnr.
Be careful what you ask for
RPi: Feel free to block or unfollow us Mastodon: blocks and unfollows
Convenient bullshit
Well yeah. I mean why else would Sensenbrenner have put the Patriot Act forward FOR RENEWAL IN 2011?!
http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=221502
A lot has changed in two years huh Jimmy boy? Like that whole completely biffing 2012 and looking set to blow 2014 even harder.
That's great Fox, you gonna sue over it? No, because you can't
It seems to me the compulsory license issue is that yes, Coulton violated the terms of compulsory licensing (or rather, that his compulsory license did not provide a license to do what he did), but because he did that, the rest of the compulsory licensing terms -- including the part that says a compulsory licensed work is not subject to derivative work protection -- is therefore invalid.
In other words, Coulton infringed on Warner (Mix-A-Lot's copyright holder), *by making a derivative work*, which a compulsory license does not provide license to do.
But that's Warner's issue, and *NOT* Fox's. Fox has no standing in that question. Fox is still liable for infringing Coulton's derivative work, even if that derivative work was itself infringing.
Unless an infringed work is ineligible for such protection. (I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.) But Fox is not in a position to assert that such work is infringing. Unless Fox can convince Warner to sue Coulton over his version, that question is not resolved and (afaik) we must assume that the work is *not* infringing until the copyright holder or their representative sue Coulton to make that determination. IANAL, but boy do I wish I was.
Where is my army of nerd lawyers, I ask you? You need a website defaced or taken down, just call 4chan. You need to win a court case you deserve to win, who you gonna call?