6 ms·

This is tricky because if you declare any API no matter how trivial copyrightable then the first guy to copyright a function to compute sqrt, tan, atan, etc win

This is tricky because if you declare any API no matter how trivial copyrightable then the first guy to copyright a function to compute sqrt, tan, atan, etc wins. And if you can't copyright trivial interfaces then the question becomes where the line is drawn. There's far more at stake than Oracle trying to squeeze money out of Google.

seibelj 10y ago
Someone should write a program that generates all possible function names and argument types and declares them copyrighted, then release them all to the public.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  That list wouldn't be copyrightable, since it contains no creative elements.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Spivak 10y ago
  You could, by a similar method, generate all possible images but that doesn't mean you would be able to copyright them all. The creative element would become the act of identifying specific images within your set with artistic merit -- those would be copyrightable.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Nope, there is no "merit test" for copyright. Copyright attaches when the creation is fixed in tangible form.
    - Spivak 10y ago
      You're right. Sorry, merit is a loaded term in copyright discussions. I don't mean that they would have to argue that their choice of images has artistic merit, but that the artist would probably think it does to pick it out of the billions.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      It's not a "merit test", it's just "these are the ones the artist chose". Copyright attaches to creative works when they are fixed in tangible form. An exhaustive list of every combination of colors in order is not creative.
Spivak 10y ago
I completely agree, but I don't really know what to do about it. Surely a document describing a useful software interface (GUI, CLI, API) is a creative work and takes effort to produce. Unless we just agree that it's a necessary exception for the purposes of interoperbility I'm not sure how I would argue that it shouldn't fall under copyright protection.
- lmitchell 10y ago
  I'm not 100% certain of all the details but isn't that exactly what Google tried, and failed, to assert originally? If I remember correctly, the 'fair use' argument only came up after Google lost on the 'can't copyright an interface' argument, and the real travesty here is not that Google are being denied fair use (because, you're right, it's not fair use), but that Oracle's copyright claim over the Java API ever held up at all.
- derefr 10y ago
  Copyright would apply to the documentation itself, or the published header files themselves, as works; it wouldn't apply to the API itself. Mind you, Oracle was suing Google for using the header files themselves; since Google could have easily just typed up their own versions that did the same thing, it's almost more of a "plagiarism" case than a "copyright infringement" case: they shipped something that was exactly from Oracle, rather than just paraphrasing it. Oracle was probably in the right to sue over that. But re: APIs—there's much more well-resolved case-law for this, coming from the gaming vertical: games have copyright, but game designs (including things like their network protocols) do not. It has both pros (Microsoft can't use the Minecraft IP to sue Terraria or Factorio; people can advance AI by writing bots that play Starcraft) and cons (the iOS and Android stores being saturated with mechanical clones of each successful game) but it's very certainly "the way things are."
  - jolux 10y ago
    >it's almost more of a "plagiarism" case than a "copyright infringement" Do you know what the definition of plagiarism is? Google it, "copyright infringement" is listed as a synonym.
saghm 10y ago
After the original trial verdict was overturned by the appeals court, I joked about copyrighting every single signature I could think of for print functions so that I could claim royalties from virtually every program in existent.

seibelj 10y ago

Someone should write a program that generates all possible function names and argument types and declares them copyrighted, then release them all to the public.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
That list wouldn't be copyrightable, since it contains no creative elements.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Spivak 10y ago
You could, by a similar method, generate all possible images but that doesn't mean you would be able to copyright them all. The creative element would become the act of identifying specific images within your set with artistic merit -- those would be copyrightable.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Nope, there is no "merit test" for copyright. Copyright attaches when the creation is fixed in tangible form.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    You're right. Sorry, merit is a loaded term in copyright discussions. I don't mean that they would have to argue that their choice of images has artistic merit, but that the artist would probably think it does to pick it out of the billions.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    It's not a "merit test", it's just "these are the ones the artist chose". Copyright attaches to creative works when they are fixed in tangible form. An exhaustive list of every combination of colors in order is not creative.

Spivak 10y ago

I completely agree, but I don't really know what to do about it. Surely a document describing a useful software interface (GUI, CLI, API) is a creative work and takes effort to produce. Unless we just agree that it's a necessary exception for the purposes of interoperbility I'm not sure how I would argue that it shouldn't fall under copyright protection.

lmitchell 10y ago
I'm not 100% certain of all the details but isn't that exactly what Google tried, and failed, to assert originally? If I remember correctly, the 'fair use' argument only came up after Google lost on the 'can't copyright an interface' argument, and the real travesty here is not that Google are being denied fair use (because, you're right, it's not fair use), but that Oracle's copyright claim over the Java API ever held up at all.
derefr 10y ago
Copyright would apply to the documentation itself, or the published header files themselves, as works; it wouldn't apply to the API itself. Mind you, Oracle was suing Google for using the header files themselves; since Google could have easily just typed up their own versions that did the same thing, it's almost more of a "plagiarism" case than a "copyright infringement" case: they shipped something that was exactly from Oracle, rather than just paraphrasing it. Oracle was probably in the right to sue over that. But re: APIs—there's much more well-resolved case-law for this, coming from the gaming vertical: games have copyright, but game designs (including things like their network protocols) do not. It has both pros (Microsoft can't use the Minecraft IP to sue Terraria or Factorio; people can advance AI by writing bots that play Starcraft) and cons (the iOS and Android stores being saturated with mechanical clones of each successful game) but it's very certainly "the way things are."
- jolux 10y ago
  >it's almost more of a "plagiarism" case than a "copyright infringement" Do you know what the definition of plagiarism is? Google it, "copyright infringement" is listed as a synonym.

saghm 10y ago

After the original trial verdict was overturned by the appeals court, I joked about copyrighting every single signature I could think of for print functions so that I could claim royalties from virtually every program in existent.