To the the contrary, in the US, there is caselaw that, if your unauthorized derivative work is infringing, then you do not own the original elements of that work either. See Pickett v Prince.
What were the original elements there? That it was made into a guitar? What other part of the work was creative?
I'm honestly asking because I can't find anything that goes as far as the claim you're making regarding original elements. I'm not even sure what original/severable elements could exist in that particular case.
Pickett argued there were original elements, not me. But whether they existed didn’t matter to the court. From the decision:
“We need not pursue the issue of originality of derivative works. The Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. […] So Pickett could not make a derivative work based on the Prince symbol without Prince's authorization even if Pickett's guitar had a smidgeon of originality.”
gorlilla|2 years ago
I'm honestly asking because I can't find anything that goes as far as the claim you're making regarding original elements. I'm not even sure what original/severable elements could exist in that particular case.
antiterra|2 years ago
“We need not pursue the issue of originality of derivative works. The Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. […] So Pickett could not make a derivative work based on the Prince symbol without Prince's authorization even if Pickett's guitar had a smidgeon of originality.”