Live data from Hacker News

This maze looks familiar

krazydad.com

21–30 of 138 posts

Re: This maze looks familiar

#21
post #19
post #9

Hypothetical question: is it possible that they did not copy it? The author here indicates that the original maze was generated by software, maybe Kraft stumbled upon the same algorithm, or a close variation of it (considering the minor differences between the two)? Obviously, this is very out-of-left-field and I don't believe it either, but it's not impossible that Kraft didn't plagiarise anything.

Under some jurisdictions (eg Germany), I'm not sure whether the output of a program is copyrightable at all. Your software, yes, but probably not the output.

Wait, the information you type into a text editor or draw in Illustrator is not copywritable in Germany?

Re: This maze looks familiar

#22
post #19
post #9

Hypothetical question: is it possible that they did not copy it? The author here indicates that the original maze was generated by software, maybe Kraft stumbled upon the same algorithm, or a close variation of it (considering the minor differences between the two)? Obviously, this is very out-of-left-field and I don't believe it either, but it's not impossible that Kraft didn't plagiarise anything.

Under some jurisdictions (eg Germany), I'm not sure whether the output of a program is copyrightable at all. Your software, yes, but probably not the output.

What about if the program takes a variety of inputs which influence the output? (At some point there has to be a transition, since e.g. books are "just" the output of some program.)

Re: This maze looks familiar

#24
post #6

Heh,that poor miserable employee who probably thought nothing of copying a cool maze off the Internet.(Not to imply that makes it any less illegal) That's certainly got to be interesting/validating for the op though (albeit simultaneously violating/annoying). Definitely curious to hear how Kraft responds; if op is willing to share even more about something he shouldn't have had to deal with in the first place that is…

> who probably thought nothing of Working for a media related company or similar he will have been told not to do that sort of thing, officially at least (it'll be in the company handbook which he'll have signed a document stating he has read and understood) - so yes if he is still there he'll get some of the fallout. The company should have checks and balances on such things though, so they can't blame a sole indivi…

Yes. More than one person's hands at the company are almost assuredly dirty here. Maybe not directly, but indirectly.

No consumer packaged goods company, least of all a giant like Kraft, puts anything onto a box without many layers of approval and rounds of creative review. In this case, the buck presumably stops with the brand manager for the Mac & Cheese product. I doubt he or she would have even thought to ask about the IP origins of the maze when conducting creative review. Nevertheless, he or she bears some responsibility as the owner of the review process.

Most likely this maze was lifted and passed off as original by someone a bit lower down the food chain: an agency staffer, a freelance designer, or an artist at the company. But there is virtually no scenario in which that person's contribution wasn't reviewed a half-dozen times by people with managerial authority. At CPG companies, the package is an incredibly important and borderline sacred thing. Nothing gets onto the package by accident, and as such, it would be incredibly difficult for Kraft to argue its way out of responsibility.

Another possibility is that Nickelodeon (the owner of Spongebob) provided the artwork, including the maze, to Kraft. This makes identifying the proximately responsible party a bit trickier, but Kraft still bears a burden. It would also mean that two companies, and possibly two brand managers, had eyes on this.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#26
post #19
post #9

Hypothetical question: is it possible that they did not copy it? The author here indicates that the original maze was generated by software, maybe Kraft stumbled upon the same algorithm, or a close variation of it (considering the minor differences between the two)? Obviously, this is very out-of-left-field and I don't believe it either, but it's not impossible that Kraft didn't plagiarise anything.

Under some jurisdictions (eg Germany), I'm not sure whether the output of a program is copyrightable at all. Your software, yes, but probably not the output.

That can't possibly be that simple. Allmost all movies, songs, images and programs made today are outputs from programs.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#27
post #18

What's the offline DMCA workflow? Send an invoice for a reasonable amount, then sue if they don't pay?

Pick up the phone and call around until you find out what their limits are before some approval is needed, you can probably even explain what happened, and that you just want to invoice in an amount that can be approved, then just submit an invoice for under that amount, with a note that upon payment you will give a one-time license for the already-printed kraft boxes.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who probably thought nothing of Working for a media related company or similar he will have been told not to do that sort of thing, officially at least (it'll be in the company handbook which he'll have signed a document stating he has read and understood) - so yes if he is still there he'll get some of the fallout. The company should have checks and balances on such things though, so they can't blame a sole indivi…

Yes. More than one person's hands at the company are almost assuredly dirty here. Maybe not directly, but indirectly. No consumer packaged goods company, least of all a giant like Kraft, puts anything onto a box without many layers of approval and rounds of creative review. In this case, the buck presumably stops with the brand manager for the Mac & Cheese product. I doubt he or she would have even thought to ask abo…

As you say, it could be some freelance designer or artist whom they commissioned make the maze, and that artist committed fraud against both their customer and the real producer by passing KrazyDad's work off as his own. The company can't really double-check against out-and-out fraud. (I still think they should have financial responsibility, paying the real artist what they paid the supposed artist, even if they are morally off the hook.)

Re: This maze looks familiar

#29
At what point do a series of angled lines become copywritable? After two lines? Three? Can I copywrite two lines meeting at 67 degrees, and then claim angles 65-69 as like works? Can I then claim that your maze contains my intellectual property in several places? (And would you still feel your rights were violated had kraft taken two of your mazes and glued them together?)

Re: This maze looks familiar

#30
post #25

Sure, copyright infringement, plagiarism, but not theft! Copying is not theft! We need to hear this more often. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ

Luckily, neither the essay nor anyone else in this thread are talking about theft.
Post reply on HN