Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This maze looks familiar

krazydad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: This maze looks familiar

#111

Post by ars »

stcredzero wrote: post #108
ars wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The program used to generated the landscapes is copyrightable, the landscapes themself are not. > It's fallacious to say that this can't involve artistic awareness and creativity. Here, the law is trying to apply 19th century models to 21st century media. A problem with copyrighting mechanically generated works is there is no end to them. What awareness and creativity is shown by letting a computer make 1 million sli…

The program used to generated the landscapes is copyrightable, the landscapes themself are not. But this is problematic. Procedurally generated landscapes can still have a definite "feel" or "look." These attributes can be protected as "trade dress." But there is no way to preclude other attributes we haven't thought of yet. A problem with copyrighting mechanically generated works is there is no end to them. What awa…

> These attributes can be protected as "trade dress."

That's trademark, not copyright.

If you carefully tuned your program to create a single result you found best that might be copyrightable.

On the other hand if you wrote a generic program that randomly adjusts the variables to make lots of nice looking landscapes then the landscapes are not copyrightable, even if you did a great job on the program so all the results were beautiful.

> Clearly, the truth is that creativity can manifest in the result.

That doesn't make it copyrightable. I could plant trees in a beautiful pattern, but I can not claim copyright on photographs taken of the result.

> What if I simply used cheap data storage to slurp the output of a program so that I could use the output of someone's copyrighted code without permission?

Not following. Does "cheap data storage" make a difference? How are you "slurping" the output? What sort of program is it?

> I could imagine doing this to a procedurally generated MMO world. This would seem to make the practical effect of the law quite divergent from its intended effect.

And what's the problem? The procedurally generated MMO world is not copyrightable. That's the intended effect - to only copyright what a person actually does.

You might be able to claim a dress trademark on the MMO world if it was distinct, but not copyright.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#112

Post by dllthomas »

ars wrote: post #110
dllthomas wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photography is a creative work, mechanically produced by manual selection of particular views of something you did not necessarily create. This doesn't seem a tremendously far cry - in a sense, he is taking photographs of maze-space.

The result of a surveillance camera is not copyrightable. Only if a person controlled the camera. Even if the person carefully selected a site but then just left it there to record whatever would come, it's not clear that would be copyrightable. If you fed in specific tuning parameters to the procedure and fine tuned them until you liked the output that might have a claim. But if you just let it work randomly and pic…

How is "if a person controlled the camera" terribly semantically different from "picked the ones you liked best".

"Even if the person carefully selected a site but then just left it there to record whatever would come, it's not clear that would be copyrightable."

But in this case he selected a site (wrote the code), recorded a pile of footage, and then went through and selected particular shots based on his own personal criteria.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#113

Post by ars »

dllthomas wrote: post #112
ars wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The result of a surveillance camera is not copyrightable. Only if a person controlled the camera. Even if the person carefully selected a site but then just left it there to record whatever would come, it's not clear that would be copyrightable. If you fed in specific tuning parameters to the procedure and fine tuned them until you liked the output that might have a claim. But if you just let it work randomly and pic…

How is " if a person controlled the camera " terribly semantically different from "picked the ones you liked best" . "Even if the person carefully selected a site but then just left it there to record whatever would come, it's not clear that would be copyrightable." But in this case he selected a site (wrote the code), recorded a pile of footage, and then went through and selected particular shots based on his own pe…

He has a compilation copyright, but not copyright on the individual images.

If you leave a camera in public for a few days, then come back and edit the result into a movie you have copyright for the movie, but not for the individual stills that make it up.

To have copyright on the stills (rather than the compilation) you have to have some creativity into making them, not merely selecting them.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#114

Post by kbutler »

dllthomas wrote: post #80
cloverich wrote: post #34

I see literally thousands of mazes generated on the site, and (unless I"m mistaken) they are all simply generated output from a computer program. Its cool, but is it even possible to copyright something like this?

Given that he wrote the program, exercising creativity there, and (I presume) exercised additional creative activity manually selecting which outputs to post from the space of generated mazes, it seems likely that it's possible to copyright something like this. IANAL, though.

Selecting which outputs to post is not sufficient to establish copyright. See the copyright office's example of a piece of driftwood selected, polished, and mounted by a human:

503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.

In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.

http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#503.03(a)

Re: This maze looks familiar

#115

Post by dllthomas »

ars wrote: post #113
dllthomas wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is " if a person controlled the camera " terribly semantically different from "picked the ones you liked best" . "Even if the person carefully selected a site but then just left it there to record whatever would come, it's not clear that would be copyrightable." But in this case he selected a site (wrote the code), recorded a pile of footage, and then went through and selected particular shots based on his own pe…

He has a compilation copyright, but not copyright on the individual images. If you leave a camera in public for a few days, then come back and edit the result into a movie you have copyright for the movie, but not for the individual stills that make it up. To have copyright on the stills (rather than the compilation) you have to have some creativity into making them, not merely selecting them.

How does this differ from taking a shot with a tripod?

Re: This maze looks familiar

#116

Post by dllthomas »

kbutler wrote: post #114
dllthomas wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that he wrote the program, exercising creativity there, and (I presume) exercised additional creative activity manually selecting which outputs to post from the space of generated mazes, it seems likely that it's possible to copyright something like this. IANAL, though.

Selecting which outputs to post is not sufficient to establish copyright. See the copyright office's example of a piece of driftwood selected, polished, and mounted by a human: 503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author. In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human…

Interesting, and probably somewhat closer, though I reiterate that here it is neither that he simply set up the process nor that he simply selected outputs. He did both, and both were creative portions of a single creative act.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#117

Post by dbaupp »

kd0amg wrote: post #71
dbaupp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

For any book, there exists some program which generates it, but most books are not created that way (so we consider those books to be products of human creativity).

I was talking about the word processor/text editor, since the things created by them are still just the output of some program (with heavy human influence along the way).

Re: This maze looks familiar

#118

Post by GhotiFish »

krazydad wrote: post #70
JetSpiegel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This deserves a submission. > "So often we read of very large companies riding rough-shod over small businesses or individuals," said David Bradley, director of Pentaplex. "But when it comes to the population of Great Britain being invited by a multi-national to wipe their bottoms on what appears to be the work of a Knight of the Realm without his permission, then a last stand must be made."

[This is Jim Bumgardner - author of the maze that Kraft copied]. Amusingly, this comes full circle. One of the puzzle varieties on my site is based on Penrose tilings. http://krazydad.com/slitherlink/sfiles/sl_penrose_b001.pdf Years ago, I sought (and received) permission from Penrose to use his tiling on these puzzles.

hey! That's loopy! From the Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection.

Play it here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/js/loopy...

You can play penrose style puzzles by selecting the type in the furthest right drop down menu.

(beware, select custom and choose easy mode, becuase hard mode is hard)

Re: This maze looks familiar

#119

Post by ars »

dllthomas wrote: post #115
ars wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has a compilation copyright, but not copyright on the individual images. If you leave a camera in public for a few days, then come back and edit the result into a movie you have copyright for the movie, but not for the individual stills that make it up. To have copyright on the stills (rather than the compilation) you have to have some creativity into making them, not merely selecting them.

How does this differ from taking a shot with a tripod?

You timed the shot. Don't confuse photo with video.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#120

Post by stcredzero »

ars wrote: post #111
stcredzero wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The program used to generated the landscapes is copyrightable, the landscapes themself are not. But this is problematic. Procedurally generated landscapes can still have a definite "feel" or "look." These attributes can be protected as "trade dress." But there is no way to preclude other attributes we haven't thought of yet. A problem with copyrighting mechanically generated works is there is no end to them. What awa…

> These attributes can be protected as "trade dress." That's trademark, not copyright. If you carefully tuned your program to create a single result you found best that might be copyrightable. On the other hand if you wrote a generic program that randomly adjusts the variables to make lots of nice looking landscapes then the landscapes are not copyrightable, even if you did a great job on the program so all the resul…

That's trademark, not copyright.

I never said it was copyright. Please readjust your mental model of who you're speaking to accordingly.

If you carefully tuned your program to create a single result you found best that might be copyrightable.

How is this different than carefully tuning your program to create a range of results with specific attributes? Example: All of the generated landscapes are aesthetically pleasing, but have enough open area next to obstacles to enable ambushes and also manage to look creepy at night... Such a result might indeed take

That doesn't make it copyrightable.

I'm saying that it should. IP laws date from a time where the kind of automation that makes the above possible was unthinkable. The assumption that an act of creation would result in a particular set of data is no longer warranted. Neither is the assumption that the automatic production of art is either not possible or would result in uninteresting and stereotypical output.

Not following. Does "cheap data storage" make a difference? How are you "slurping" the output? What sort of program is it?

Specifics aren't needed, but "cheap data storage" makes it possible to store the entire content of certain procedurally generated algorithms from earlier computer systems as files of ordinary size on today's typical machines. (Example: The entire Elite universe.)

And what's the problem? The procedurally generated MMO world is not copyrightable. That's the intended effect - to only copyright what a person actually does.

I'm saying that this very notion dates from a time when procedurally generated output was unimaginable to most people, and that to only copyright what a person actually does is trying to apply 19th century notions to 21st century technology. It's just like the early 20th century arguments for airlines having to pay farmers to overfly their land.

Post reply on HN