Demon license? (copyright myths)

[Bob Johnson]

Josh Ockert <torstenvl at gmail.com> wrote on Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 1:53 :
[...]
> 
> As to the subject of copyright infringement, allowing other
> Beastie-like images to be associated with FreeBSD is not copyright
> infringement. Gentoo's penguin is not copyright infringement. Stylized
> logos that are merely similar do not infringe on eachother. That's
> like suggesting that a professional photographer at a wedding owns all
> amateur wedding photos taken by friends and family attending the
> event. It is not a subject that is copyrighted, or nobody would be
> able to paint flowers anymore. It is the image itself. Any work that
> is arrived at independently cannot possibly infringe on another's
> copyright. So a redrawing of a daemon that is not a copy of Kirk's is
> completely legal. (IANAL.. yet. Give me a couple more years and the
> MBE though and that'll change).

IANAL either, but in general, a copyright holder has the right to control 
derivative works as well.  You can't publish pictures of Mickey Mouse without 
permission of Disney, even if you drew the pictures yourself, and you 
(probably) can't publish images of Beastie without Kirk McKusick's 
permission.  The fact that he is lenient in enforcing his rights does not 
mean that he doesn't have them.  

If someone manages to come up with a daemon image that is obviously NOT 
Beastie, then they won't have to worry about McKusick's copyright, but since 
he is so lenient in granting usage, why bother?

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

- Bob