4 ms·
It seems plausible to me that the author of _some_ software would have copyright of that software's output. For example I assume the authors of a 100% non-inter
by 1wd 10y ago
It seems plausible to me that the author of _some_ software would have copyright of that software's output. For example I assume the authors of a 100% non-interactive, real-time rendered audio-visual art piece (c.f. demo scene) would own the copyright of the output (e.g. a movie file), even if someone else runs the software.
Another example would be an interactive game. Here the player / user contributes a certain creative input, but still some game developers retain the right to stream gameplay (=distribute the output of the software which uses certain copyrighted assets?).
I guess a game like Minecraft might "cross the line" to where some of the output (any elaborately voxel constructions) might plausibly be owned by the player.
- zubat 10y agoThe boundary for transformation is established in several areas of media. Recorded samples from the line out of a synthesizer are owned by the author of the recording, even if they're factory presets. Likewise, bitmap conversions of a vector font are the property of the game developers who made them. In contrast, sample data copied from the ROM of a synthesizer is still under copyright, and original vector font files are owned by their authors.
- LocalH 10y agoActualy, generally in the US, bitmap fponts are not copyrightable, nor are any pure image representations of the glyphs in a font. Truetype fpnts generally are copyrightable because they are small programs that generate the desired glyphs, and it's the program itself that is protected.