I'm not sure what you mean by transformative purposes - could you explain?
Complex legal term used in copyright litigation. "Derivative" works are often copyright infringement; "transformative" ones are not. An easy example is that taking a picture and repainting it in different colors is probably derivative; chopping it up and using the pieces as mosaic tiles in an entirely different picture is probably transformative. (How that connects to text, nobody knows.)
TWDG was indeed settled--after a court had made substantial rulings in favor of the defendants, pointing out in part that since the Mitchell estate had specifically forbidden derivatives using mixed race characters and homosexual situations, TWDG's usage of those pushed it into a market that the original creators had no interest in developing.
(The Mitchell estate demanded an injunction against the sale of TWDG. They got one. A higher court overturned it. They took it higher than that, and a higher court upheld the blockage of the injunction. The Mitchell estate declined to continue trying to sue, after a court had ruled there was not a substantial chance they'd win--part of the requirements of an injunction.)
The renamed characters in TWDG were determined to be irrelevant: everyone knew who they meant; they were deemed to be representing the original characters. Using new names doesn't affect that. (Using new names might help an argument that a piece is parody, though.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2008-01-14 09:42 pm (UTC)Complex legal term used in copyright litigation. "Derivative" works are often copyright infringement; "transformative" ones are not. An easy example is that taking a picture and repainting it in different colors is probably derivative; chopping it up and using the pieces as mosaic tiles in an entirely different picture is probably transformative. (How that connects to text, nobody knows.)
TWDG was indeed settled--after a court had made substantial rulings in favor of the defendants, pointing out in part that since the Mitchell estate had specifically forbidden derivatives using mixed race characters and homosexual situations, TWDG's usage of those pushed it into a market that the original creators had no interest in developing.
(The Mitchell estate demanded an injunction against the sale of TWDG. They got one. A higher court overturned it. They took it higher than that, and a higher court upheld the blockage of the injunction. The Mitchell estate declined to continue trying to sue, after a court had ruled there was not a substantial chance they'd win--part of the requirements of an injunction.)
The renamed characters in TWDG were determined to be irrelevant: everyone knew who they meant; they were deemed to be representing the original characters. Using new names doesn't affect that. (Using new names might help an argument that a piece is parody, though.)