wow, i didn't even think of that problem! by falsifying our cultural heritage you may gain the legal right to further suppress its publication and study. a harsher indictment of copyright is hard to imagine
Even reading that document, I think the answer is "it depends".
For example, this[1] work is entirely derivative, created only using cuts from another piece of media and yet the resulting work is a complete departure and loses practically all meaning from the original. If Disney had done something like this years later using Steamboat Willie, I don't think there'd be any question that it should be considered a copyrightable piece of work and exceeds the threshold of originality.
According to the Copyright Alliance[2]:
> There is no requirement that the work be novel (as in patent law), unique, imaginative or inventive. A work need only demonstrate a very small amount of creativity in order to meet the originality requirement.
If J.K. Rowling replaces the word "wand" with "wang"[3] in the Harry Potter series and publishes a new revision, has she created a new work? According to your link, yes, she has. If you upload Harry Potter "wang" edition to the internet after the original edition enters the public domain, have you violated the copyright on the "wang" edition? Well, I think it could be argued that you have!
I posted the PDF but should have quoted, “it is not possible to extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative.” But, I get your point: is it possible to practically extend a copyrighted work by defending a carefully-chosen derivative?
I was surprised how broad this can go: the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Section 101: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work."
So, it appears I’m not clarifying anything. But, maybe we look at the things which are not derivative works. Let’s say a movie shows a copyrighted picture on the wall. There seems to be a six-second convention beyond which a production assistant would typically obtain permission.
The Titanic story comes to mind: James Cameron paid for a particular painting shown in Titanic. It was re-released in 3D and he was asked to pay again. So, within the industry, his derivative work enjoys protection, but insider copyright agreements do not survive the derivation.
your understanding of derivative works 'protection' is backwards, in large part because copyright lawyers use euphemistic doubletalk. 'protection' doesn't mean you can't be sued or will win if you are sued. it means you can sue someone else and win, such as a guy on a blanket outside the mall selling titanic dvds or your translation of don quixote
