you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 hours ago (1 child)

It is derivative, in the sense used by the film/TV industry. You may not be aware but US TV is written work-for-hire, meaning that the writer gives up their rights. In this case, anything written or developed for the ER Pilot would be assigned to WBTV and be subject to their contractual arrangements with Crichton. Anything derived further from that material would also come under the same arrangement.

The Crichton position is that WBTV on the sly tried to shift work product from under the auspices of their arrangement and into a “new” production, to the loss of Crichton.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 25 minutes ago

    Two issues, first, as noted above, copyright law in the US uses a substantial incorporation standard, not an “any work done under a heading is poisoned” heading.

    Second- you’re assuming some substantial contractual rights here to wbtv’s work on the project. It sounds like they were in talks. So their contract is probably either minimal or the contract was their agreement for the IP on the original run and has some relevant terms.

  • source
  • parent