121–130 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this differ from taking a shot with a tripod?
You timed the shot. Don't confuse photo with video.
Notice also that many cameras these days will take many shots in rapid succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_%28photography%29)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That'd be a fair comparison if Powerpoint generated powerpoint shows for you without any work on your part.
If you look closely, the path isn't exactly the same. There was some work involved. Perhaps they even attempted to re-implemented the algorithm? Are algorithms copyrightable?
The test for determining infringement is, more or less, the classic smell test: does it look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck? Would a reasonable individual conclude, from visual inspection, that Kraft's maze is strikingly similar to the original maze? Even if there are some small changes here and there, it could still be found to be sufficiently similar.
For instance, if I tried to put out a version of a popular song that was ever so slightly different from that song, I'd be infringing if a reasonable listener found my version sufficiently close to identical. If I put out a book called "Jimmy Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," and my work was more or less identical to "Harry Potter," with some character names and minor sequences changed, I'd probably be found to be infringing upon the original work.
[1] IANAL, but I've dealt with copyright issues, to a certain tangential extent, in a professional capacity.
[2] Note that we're talking about copyrights here, not patents, which are different animals altogether.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look closely, the path isn't exactly the same. There was some work involved. Perhaps they even attempted to re-implemented the algorithm? Are algorithms copyrightable?
My understanding of copyright law [1] is that the maze itself, not the maze-generation process, is the issue here. The author accrues a copyright over the maze by virtue of having published it. Kraft's republication of the maze is potential infringement of the copyright over the maze. The algorithm is almost irrelevant in that determination. The copyright is over the work itself, not the process of creating the work.…
In this case, if the algorithm is one of a narrow range of obvious algorithms, "just happened to..." might be more believable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 pleasi…
How can you extend copyright to include such a thing? Presumably you don't want to - but it on you to somehow distinguish between them.
Also, pre-computer automation was not as impossible as you might think, some examples: A double pendulum with a pen, a spirograph, a sand bucket on a rope, a spinning top with paint.
And see this reply from someone else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8032980 - generated artwork has existed before computers, and it is not copyrightable.
I have not completely decided if I would agree with your proposal or not, you would need to be much more specific about the limits of where copyright would not apply. Because as broad as you make it sound I would not agree, but if more limited then maybe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You timed the shot. Don't confuse photo with video.
How is timing not selection? And it's still being captured mechanically. Notice also that many cameras these days will take many shots in rapid succession ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_%28photography%29 )
And a photo is different from a video in the timing factor.
BTW Copyright laws are impossible to mathematically define - they always have a subjective factor: Does this seem creative or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is timing not selection? And it's still being captured mechanically. Notice also that many cameras these days will take many shots in rapid succession ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_%28photography%29 )
The difference is in the action of the person, not in the method of the machine. And a photo is different from a video in the timing factor. BTW Copyright laws are impossible to mathematically define - they always have a subjective factor: Does this seem creative or not?
And damned straight this seems creative. At least as creative as a typical snapshot. Do you disagree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pleasi…
You still hit the problem that it's possible to make a program that can output every possible permutation of every possible song. Saved as midi files you could actually realistically do that for short songs. How can you extend copyright to include such a thing? Presumably you don't want to - but it on you to somehow distinguish between them. Also, pre-computer automation was not as impossible as you might think, some…
How can you extend copyright to include such a thing?
Simple, you wouldn't. Yes, but this is already covered in the concept of sufficient creativity.
Also, pre-computer automation was not as impossible as you might think, some examples: A double pendulum with a pen, a spirograph, a sand bucket on a rope, a spinning top with paint.
Also covered by "sufficient creativity" for trivial combinations of such machines. Now, if it was a system which balanced the spirographs and double pendulums in a tangible and describable way as to produce a finely balanced effect.
And see this reply from someone else... generated artwork has existed before computers, and it is not copyrightable.
Yes, but the degree of automation we have today completely changes the technological landscape in such a profound way, that anyone should be skeptical if such laws still apply.
I have not completely decided if I would agree with your proposal or not, you would need to be much more specific about the limits of where copyright would not apply.
Common sense and the market could resolve a lot of the potential problems you see. What use is a tool like a spirograph if you can't use the output freely? Tools with restrictive stipulations will eliminate themselves from the marketplace.
Things like a program that simply enumerates all 32x32 pixel images are transparent enough that a judge should be able to adjudicate properly. I can see, however, that there would be more complex cases, and the cost to society may not be worth the potential damage IP meta-squatters would incur.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a project in the early days of the internet boom, a website was put up (in australia IIRC) with every possible melody combination (using discrete scales) along with a copyright notice for each one, so nobody would be able to write a song in the future without infringing. even if there was no creativity involved and thus the copyright would fail, it seems (IANAL) that it might put the melodies into the publi…
Copyright is not ownership of a particular composition, its ownership of the right to copy a particular work. While similar composition often is relevant evidence in a copyright case, the actual critical fact is, for ownership, the act of creation, and for infringement, whether the creation was copied/derived from a particular other work in which copyright ownership existed due to the act of creation. The project you…
You use the term "act of creation" as if he didn't engage in it. Not sure how you can claim that he didn't create the melodies, he did, doesn't matter that he didn't ever hear them, neither did Beethoven (you get my point). If he had any musical training he could credibly state that he was creating a Philip Glass style composition exploring the space of melodies blah blah blah. You don't think a skilled musician could characterize and categorize the different elements of this work? If he was serious about it, he could call it his ring cycle and start playing it, all the way through, a one hour performance a week.
And then I pointed out, and you ignored, that even if he didn't go out and claim copyright infringement, there is still the point that he insulated himself in a certain way from infringement claims from others.
I think he made an interesting philosophical point, I think you should chew on it in a more interesting way. In a case of an actual claim of infringement, he created lawyer fodder that could drag through courts for years, had he been a musician.
No, I don't think he overturned copyright law. To a large extent, judges make decisions based on practicalities more than they do on the letter of the law. The letter of the law comes up when there are colliding practicalities, and ambiguity in the law. Still, I think it's a more interesting thought exercise than you are giving it credit for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is impossible.
Mind elaborating why? I'm not versed in maze generation, but I am a software dev, and reinventing an existing algorithm does happen. It might be very unlikely in this case, but I'd just like to know why.
1.) The specific maze style used, with the semi-random angled lines within a circle shape, isn't the most mathematically simple form of a maze. If it was a grid pattern in a rectangle, there might be a tiny chance of two people making the same maze, but to create a maze of that style would require more creative programming, with more tune-able parameters, and more decisions left to the implementer.
2.) In order to choose from the vast number of possible mazes that fit a certain pattern, the algorithm is almost certainly going use some random number generation. Even if two people were using the exact same maze algorithm, they would have to also have to use the same randomization process, and start with the same seed in order to arrive at the same maze. I guess it wouldn't be impossible for both people to explicitly choose the same initial seed, (or arrive at it randomly) but that would be very unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly: I don't think the term "identity theft" is a good one. It's not clear at all what exactly that even means unless people have had it explained to them; and even then it's pretty vague and encompasses lots of things. Identify theft is a kind of fraud or perhaps libel, but it's certainly not conventional theft. Nevertheless, the term has taken on a life of its own, and that's just the way language works. The p…
> Identify theft is a kind of fraud or perhaps libel, but it's certainly not conventional theft. there is some argument that it is conventional theft. It does, essentially, render the original unfit for use until considerable time is spent repairing it.
It really isn't the same thing. It's vaguely related, and that's fine, but pretending the two meanings are identical in an analogy (you wouldn't steal a car?) is still disingenuous.