or adapted.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Professor Nimmer opines that after a character has been introduced in a work, subsequent works in a series that feature the same character are derivative works. See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.12. To support his proposition, Professor Nimmer cites to case law that adopts the position that sequels or series featuring the same character are derivative works. Id. § 2.12 n. 23 (citing Micro Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.1998) (user-created files based on copyrighted Duke Nukem computer game “are surely sequels, telling new ... tales of Duke’s fabulous adventures. A book about Duke would infringe for the same reason, even if it contained no pictures.”)); § 2.12 n. 23.1 (citing Salinger v. Colting, 641 F.Supp.2d 250, 267 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 607 F.3d 68 (2d
holding that the protection of the work product rule continues after litigation has terminated holding that woodfields fairnotice standard continues to apply holding that the selection of the jury constitutes part of a public trial holding that a novel that continues the story of catcher in the rye and its protagonist constitutes a derivative work holding that the theory continues to apply under  2k21b5 postbuiley