[melevittfl]

No, it’s more fundamental than fair use. Fair use is a defence to a copyright infringement. It’s an argument that, yes, I did violate the copyright of the creator, but my violation should be allowed.

The issue here is, what are creators allowed to own and control. It’s about the fundamental question of what copyright gives the creators control over.

Does creating a picture mean you own the right to its description? And you have the right to prevent anyone else from describing your picture?

[bawolff]

Does creating a movie give you the right to its novelization? I think the answer would be yes. With that in mind why wouldn't creating a picture give you the right to its description (subject to fair use)

In general i think fair use serves as a good balance for these types of questions.

[bigbadfeline]

> Does creating a movie give you the right to its novelization?

Go to imdb and see some of plot summaries there. Is that what you call "novelization"? Are you going to sue that site?

[bawolff]

> Is that what you call "novelization"?

No, because that's not what the definition of novelization is. By novelization i mean when someone makes a novel version of a movie.

The point im trying to make here is we regularly expect translations from one medium to another to be copyrighted, so why is this different?

> Are you going to sue that site?

No, because i believe it to be a pretty text book example of fair use.