Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
Sorry, I truly cannot say. I read hamlet but have never seen Tom Stoppard's play. I was going by the Wikipedia article.
|
I've seen, read and studied both, and I think that R&G is thoroughly transformative, not derivative. It is very substantially original, has a completely different style, and it is complementary to Hamlet (it makes not a lot of sense to people who aren't familiar with Hamlet). It doesn't re-tell the Hamlet story; it takes two minor "disposable" characters and tells their story, in all the gaps and at the edges of the Hamlet story.
If you want to stick with Wikipedia as a source:
Quote:
The modern emphasis of transformativeness in fair use analysis stems from a 1990 article by Judge Pierre N. Leval in the Harvard Law Review, "Toward a Fair Use Standard",[16] which the Court quoted and cited extensively in its Campbell opinion. In his article, Leval explained the social importance of transformative use of another's work and what justifies such a taking::
"I believe the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.
Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses."
|