Leif Roar Moldskred

Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

> It doesn't just protect in copying actual works but also ideas. There
> was a case where a photographer took a similar photo to another and
> lost the case.


Well, no, it only protects _expressions_ of ideas. If someone tells
about this great idea he has for a photograph and you go and make a
photograph based on that idea, that's not copyright infringement.

It does get a little fuzzy around the edges, particularly with fiction
(where a named character might be thought of as an expression), but in
general the above holds.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

BGB

On 2/20/2012 2:45 AM, Lew wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> It [copyright] doesn't just protect in copying actual works but also
>> ideas. There
>> was a case where a photographer took a similar photo to another and
>> lost the case.
>
> That's still protection of expression, not of ideas. It is the
> photographs that were similar enough to constitute violation, not the
> ideas.
>

yeah.

photographer A takes picture of brick wall;
photographer B rips off picture of brick wall.

vs, if photographer B took a similar picture of another brick wall.
"but, you see, these bricks are different..."

could be extended to pictures of concrete and metal panels and so on as
well.

it makes sense to make things different enough that they can be more
easily told apart (one picture of carved stone brick vs another of
cinder-block, ...), or if they are of the same material, at least some
sort of apparent visual difference.

or such...

Gene Wirchenko

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:08:08 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
<leifm@dimnakorr.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:27:26 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
>
>>>You could write a Harry Potter novel without seeing the original work, too.
>>>J.K. Rowling could then sue you, as her publishers have done, and you would
>>>lose. Are you cool with that?
>>
>> She could sue, and you could win. Copyright protects against
>> copying. Independently coming up with something is not a copyright
>> violation. Granted that, in this case, it would be difficult to show
>> the independence, but in principle, it is possible.
>
>If you wrote a _Harry Potter novel_, i.e. a novel set in the Harry
>Potter universe, it would count as a derivitative work and be in
>violation of Rowling's copyright, even if most of the work was
>original. I don't think that aspect of copyright is relevant for
>source code though, but INAL.

But that is not what is under discussion. Note the "...without
seeing the original work...". It is not copyright violation then.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Novice

Novice <novice@example..com> wrote in
news:Xns9FFB971CFBEEEjpnasty@94.75.214.39:

> I'm curious to know the legalities involved in "borrowing" code
> without paying for it.
>
> Let me clarify. Let's say that I find some code snippets or even
> entire classes, displayed on websites and that it would save me time
> and money to use those classes in my own projects. This web site,
> www.java2s.com, is just one of many such web sites on the Internet, as
> is the Java Tutorial at the Oracle website.
>
> Assuming I make no claim that I am the author (by leaving the @author
> Javadoc tag empty), am I "stealing" this code? What if I cite the
> author name in the @author tag (or the URL of the webpage in a comment
> if the author's name isn't present in the code)? Or would I have to
> get written permission of the author or website to use the code? Or
> even obtain a licence before I can use the code?
>
> Code published in web pages or newsgroup posts "feels" as if it should
> be in the public domain but I think that's just wishful thinking on my
> part. Given that you can look at it without paying anyone for that
> privilege, and copy it into your own IDE and try it, etc. it feels as
> if it is there to be used. But as I understand it, those who create
> written works, whether books or programs, are their owners (unless in
> the employ of others) and retain copyright on this work, a copyright
> that typically lasts for the developer's life plus 70 years.
>
> If copyright does apply to all these snippets and example classes,
> would I be able to bypass copyright by modifying the code in some
> small way - maybe just with some comments or different variable names
> - or would that be the equivalent of painting a stolen car: it doesn't
> negate the fact that it's stolen and just tries to make it less
> obvious?
>
> I've been banging my head against a wall for a while on a couple of
> classes my project needs and I have found two perfectly good classes
> that meet my needs so I'd like to use them rather than put still more
> time into making my own classes work satisfactorily. I'd like to
> figure out what I can do to use the clases I found without having to
> look over my shoulder (or fight my conscience) on the question of
> "stealing" this code.
>


This thread has gotten WAY too big to respond to each and every comment.
Let me just thank each and every one of you for your remarks on the issue
I raised. I also want to acknowledge that I muddled my views on how
copyright law SHOULD work with the way it actually DOES work in some of
my remarks.

For what it's worth, I studied the code that I wanted to borrow to see
how the author accomplished what I wanted to do, then revised his
technique substantially. I think mine may actually be more efficient and
I'm confident it is considerably clearer. Therefore, although I have tha
author's permission in writing - I'm assuming an email is sufficient to
constitute "permission in writing" as opposed to a notarized paper - I'll
be using my own code in my project.

And, going forward, I will be guided by the copyright notices that appear
in the code that I see and observe them as scrupulously as I can.

Again, thank you all for your remarks.


--
Novice