3 ms·

I disagree. The basic rules for copyright are fairly simple. (If you include something because someone told you it was OK, but didn't do at least some minimal w

I disagree. The basic rules for copyright are fairly simple. (If you include something because someone told you it was OK, but didn't do at least some minimal work to verify that it was in fact OK, then you have erred.) Start from 'no' (that is, you don't have permission to copy something you didn't write). Even if you do have permission to copy something[1], you probably don't have permission to claim that you wrote it. Even if you do have permission to claim that you wrote it (because it's in the public domain), you would be a first-class jackass to do so. The cases you point out are subtle, and were attempts to expand what copyright covers. (This is similar to the discussion some months ago about the copyright-ability of one's tweets, with the general consensus being that they cannot individually be copyrighted, but one's "tweet-oeuvre" would be. Single words and short phrases are too short to be individually unique.) Yet, neither of these cases change the basics (assume you don't have permission, don't try to claim what you didn't write as yours). Fair use is a more subtle item because it's based on case law instead of regulation or explicit law. I never said that copyright law wasn't hard, or that copyright issues couldn't get complicated quickly. But getting the start of things right? It's not hard at all.

btilly 16y ago
Not so fast. If you include something that someone told you you could, that is a defense against copyright infringement if you are willing to take measures to stop infringing once you are informed of this. (This is the spirit, though not the letter, behind the DMCA safe harbor provisions.) Secondly there are ways in which someone can write something, truly believe they own it, but actually don't own it. So the question of who has permission is not so simple. Thirdly the cases I pointed to were arguments about what copyright already covered. There were good arguments both ways under existing legislation and previous case law. The right answer to those questions is based on existing case law, and is hardly simple. (I was caught by surprise when I learned that it was OK in the USA to take someone else's copyrighted binary, and reverse engineer what is pretty much their header file out of it, and include that header file in your own copyrighted work without any kind of attribution!)

btilly 16y ago

Not so fast. If you include something that someone told you you could, that is a defense against copyright infringement if you are willing to take measures to stop infringing once you are informed of this. (This is the spirit, though not the letter, behind the DMCA safe harbor provisions.) Secondly there are ways in which someone can write something, truly believe they own it, but actually don't own it. So the question of who has permission is not so simple. Thirdly the cases I pointed to were arguments about what copyright already covered. There were good arguments both ways under existing legislation and previous case law. The right answer to those questions is based on existing case law, and is hardly simple. (I was caught by surprise when I learned that it was OK in the USA to take someone else's copyrighted binary, and reverse engineer what is pretty much their header file out of it, and include that header file in your own copyrighted work without any kind of attribution!)