5 ms·

There must be a creative work. This seems a strange and kind of arbitrary requirement to me. So, for example, creating a transcript of an audio recording does

by danbruc 10y ago

There must be a creative work. This seems a strange and kind of arbitrary requirement to me. So, for example, creating a transcript of an audio recording does not create a new copyrighted work, because it is simply documenting a fact like 1+1=2. If I put effort into creating a transcription of an audio recording, then why shouldn't I be the one that decides what others can do with this transcription? What does it matter that it did not take any creativity? End everybody else is free to create his own transcription and do with that whatever he wants, my control over the usage of my transcription does not affect them in any way.

drivingmenuts 10y ago
A translation might allow for some creativity since you would be interpreting nuances of two or more languages, but transcription is just writing down the words of someone else. No creativity involved at all.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 10y ago
> This seems a strange and kind of arbitrary requirement to me. The intent is to protect creative expression that provides society with something new, not to protect any easily reproducible duplication effort. If you choose not to make a transcript of an audio recording, someone else will do so if there is a demand for a transcription, hence the benefit to society in providing protections for your transcription is minimal.
vonklaus 10y ago
I find it unreasonable people seem to think this is so obviously wrong. I happen to disagree with you, but others seem to pretend this is obviously black and white, it isn't. Creativity itself is a subjective measuring stick. In your example, literally writing down the words spoken during a film would be to transcribe it. If I, or another, took the time to do such a thing, it would be identical presuming we both did this correctly. This would not be creative as we are simply doing something as procedural as doing weights and measures. I find these things somewhat arbitrary, because, conversely if I were to read aloud a book and make an audio recording, presumably that would be copywritable. If I had the rights to make such a recording, or if the work was in the public domain, I believe my voice & intonation would constitute either creativity/originality and the uniqueness would allow me to apply. I am not a lawyer, nor am I sure whether there is precendent. The point is, that these are very similar things and it is treated very ambiguously. Should I own my own voice? Should I be allowed to simply read something and consider it a creative work? Does intonation and enthusiasm matter in the delivery of the work? It is all a bit rediculous, and frankly copywrite should be limited substantially. However, it is clearly a case by case basis and thus super difficult. Certainly, we would want to promote people like Elon Musk to create things like the Tesla (ironically much of it is open sourced) but at the same time, would want people to build on innovations and enjoy these things unhindered, or what is the point.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  It really is clear when it comes to faithful reproductions of public domain 2D works in the US. US copyright law doesn't regard "sweat of the brow" as sufficient justification for a copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright... Pedantic aside: Musk didn't exactly start Tesla...
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    I will cede you may be correct, of course the world is much bigger than America, and presumably different states and courts have different variations for coywrite, logo, ect. You are correct Musk didn't start Tesla. However, he did create it and Eberhard basically sank the company. Also, I meant to put the Model s instead of Tesla. I will also, correct myself to say that certainly Musk himself didn't create the model s, Tesla, ect alone. The point was that patents, trademakrs and copywrite are there to protect the people who build and create things, however the system is obviously very broken.

by danbruc 10y ago

drivingmenuts 10y ago

A translation might allow for some creativity since you would be interpreting nuances of two or more languages, but transcription is just writing down the words of someone else. No creativity involved at all.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vidarh 10y ago

> This seems a strange and kind of arbitrary requirement to me. The intent is to protect creative expression that provides society with something new, not to protect any easily reproducible duplication effort. If you choose not to make a transcript of an audio recording, someone else will do so if there is a demand for a transcription, hence the benefit to society in providing protections for your transcription is minimal.

vonklaus 10y ago

I find it unreasonable people seem to think this is so obviously wrong. I happen to disagree with you, but others seem to pretend this is obviously black and white, it isn't. Creativity itself is a subjective measuring stick. In your example, literally writing down the words spoken during a film would be to transcribe it. If I, or another, took the time to do such a thing, it would be identical presuming we both did this correctly. This would not be creative as we are simply doing something as procedural as doing weights and measures. I find these things somewhat arbitrary, because, conversely if I were to read aloud a book and make an audio recording, presumably that would be copywritable. If I had the rights to make such a recording, or if the work was in the public domain, I believe my voice & intonation would constitute either creativity/originality and the uniqueness would allow me to apply. I am not a lawyer, nor am I sure whether there is precendent. The point is, that these are very similar things and it is treated very ambiguously. Should I own my own voice? Should I be allowed to simply read something and consider it a creative work? Does intonation and enthusiasm matter in the delivery of the work? It is all a bit rediculous, and frankly copywrite should be limited substantially. However, it is clearly a case by case basis and thus super difficult. Certainly, we would want to promote people like Elon Musk to create things like the Tesla (ironically much of it is open sourced) but at the same time, would want people to build on innovations and enjoy these things unhindered, or what is the point.

nitrogen 10y ago
It really is clear when it comes to faithful reproductions of public domain 2D works in the US. US copyright law doesn't regard "sweat of the brow" as sufficient justification for a copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright... Pedantic aside: Musk didn't exactly start Tesla...
- vonklaus 10y ago
  I will cede you may be correct, of course the world is much bigger than America, and presumably different states and courts have different variations for coywrite, logo, ect. You are correct Musk didn't start Tesla. However, he did create it and Eberhard basically sank the company. Also, I meant to put the Model s instead of Tesla. I will also, correct myself to say that certainly Musk himself didn't create the model s, Tesla, ect alone. The point was that patents, trademakrs and copywrite are there to protect the people who build and create things, however the system is obviously very broken.