6 ms·

The Constitution guarantees the right to free expression. CBS's strategy is based on threats, not law. A common misconception: Stage 9 looks the same as the US

The Constitution guarantees the right to free expression. CBS's strategy is based on threats, not law. A common misconception: Stage 9 looks the same as the USS Enterprise and that matters; nope. Legally, if Stage 9 is an original work, there isn't much CBS can do to stop it other than to try to look scary w/endless litigation. With the ACLU's help Stage 9 should easily prevail.

DontGiveTwoFlux 8y ago
From the video linked in the article, it looks like they are using the music, and characters from the show. The content of the screens also appear to be copies from the show. I am not a lawyer, but those do look like infringing elements. Still, maybe with these elements removed they could have a case.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
Do you have something you can cite regarding this? If I write my own novel that happens to look exactly like Stephen King's "It", I can't just start publishing it.
- grizzles 8y ago
  If yours was an original work, how would you know it's the same? It's absurdly unlikely that you could write "It" but I'm sure people co-invent blocks of text every day. I wonder what the longest block of text is on the internet that two people independently wrote.
  - kwhitefoot 8y ago
    > I wonder what the longest block of text is on the internet that two people independently wrote. Not more than a couple of dozen words I would think. The number of possible combinations is astonishingly high. You might find this interesting: http://rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws.com/187848_0ec906d62df443b58a67061303299d63.html http://rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws.com/187848_0ec906d62...
  - apetresc 8y ago
    The law doesn't operate on such a binary scale; "if we can't formulate an extremely precise distinction then no distinction can exist at all". If someone claimed to write an original work that was exactly the same as It, a 1200-page novel, nobody would accept that it was independently written, even if we can't exactly pin down the word count at which we draw that line.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    My point is that if someone recreates an exact replica of the NCC-1701-D bridge, or another creative work that someone else made, it's ludicrous to suggest that the first amendment somehow magically protects you from doing whatever you want with it.
    - grizzles 8y ago
      What exactly do you consider an exact replica? A screenshot from the TV series? It's a fictional object. It's not like it's the bloody Concorde and they photocopied the plans from BAC/Aérospatiale and posted them on the internet.
      - pavel_lishin 8y ago
        That's a fair point; other commenters pointed out that parts of the ship as depicted are identical to the parts seen on TV (e.g., the screens with the LCARS systems on them.) That's pretty damning.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  You can write a novel about a fear-based evil clown monster named "Centsmarty" that pulls kids into the sewers and does horrible things to them, and sell it all you want. Plot is not copyrightable. It just can't contain any uniquely identifiable sentence fragments from any other novel. And you know people will be checking it particularly closely against the sentences in "It". And you'd better be sure not to say "Pennywise" anywhere, as that would be a trademark character. The bridge of the Enterprise-D is a trademark set design.
criddell 8y ago
The Constitution also guarantees property rights. You have the right to free expression, but that doesn't mean you can exercise that right on my wall.
- grizzles 8y ago
  So if I draw a perfect Mickey Mouse, can I hang it on my wall at home? Can I post it on my website? When exactly does my right to free expression become no longer exerciz-able? You can see what a slippery slope that would be.
  - criddell 8y ago
    > When exactly does my right to free expression become no longer exerciz-able? You can see what a slippery slope that would be. I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't try to give you advice. I believe though you are asking about fair use and a lot has been written about that.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    From what I remember (not a lawyer), the border between “that’s grand” and “right, you’re taking the mickey” is different between countries, and in particular the USA allows arbitrary reproduction for personal use while the UK forbids reproduction even for personal use. The edge cases are more complex than I have stated, in both countries, but courts have definitely had to answer the question “is it copyright infringement to load a computer program from (tape|drive|etc) into RAM”, so it’s not like they don’t know the simple definition is problematic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Co....
    - stan_rogers 8y ago
      You can't just say that without citing Dara Ó Briain.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jayess 8y ago
You are utterly and completely wrong. Edit - As an example: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/18411522197/insanity-making-wizard-oz-film-todays-ip-climate.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/18411522197/insan...
- grizzles 8y ago
  Your opinion is based on convention between a bunch of studios that have a self interest in preserving an asset portfolio. There is no case law that supports your opinion that I'm aware of. If I'm wrong, please do go ahead and cite it.
grizzles 8y ago
More elegantly stated: Copyright covers expressions of ideas, not ideas.

DontGiveTwoFlux 8y ago

From the video linked in the article, it looks like they are using the music, and characters from the show. The content of the screens also appear to be copies from the show. I am not a lawyer, but those do look like infringing elements. Still, maybe with these elements removed they could have a case.

pavel_lishin 8y ago

Do you have something you can cite regarding this? If I write my own novel that happens to look exactly like Stephen King's "It", I can't just start publishing it.

grizzles 8y ago
If yours was an original work, how would you know it's the same? It's absurdly unlikely that you could write "It" but I'm sure people co-invent blocks of text every day. I wonder what the longest block of text is on the internet that two people independently wrote.
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  > I wonder what the longest block of text is on the internet that two people independently wrote. Not more than a couple of dozen words I would think. The number of possible combinations is astonishingly high. You might find this interesting: http://rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws.com/187848_0ec906d62df443b58a67061303299d63.html http://rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws.com/187848_0ec906d62...
- apetresc 8y ago
  The law doesn't operate on such a binary scale; "if we can't formulate an extremely precise distinction then no distinction can exist at all". If someone claimed to write an original work that was exactly the same as It, a 1200-page novel, nobody would accept that it was independently written, even if we can't exactly pin down the word count at which we draw that line.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  My point is that if someone recreates an exact replica of the NCC-1701-D bridge, or another creative work that someone else made, it's ludicrous to suggest that the first amendment somehow magically protects you from doing whatever you want with it.
  - grizzles 8y ago
    What exactly do you consider an exact replica? A screenshot from the TV series? It's a fictional object. It's not like it's the bloody Concorde and they photocopied the plans from BAC/Aérospatiale and posted them on the internet.
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      That's a fair point; other commenters pointed out that parts of the ship as depicted are identical to the parts seen on TV (e.g., the screens with the LCARS systems on them.) That's pretty damning.
logfromblammo 8y ago
You can write a novel about a fear-based evil clown monster named "Centsmarty" that pulls kids into the sewers and does horrible things to them, and sell it all you want. Plot is not copyrightable. It just can't contain any uniquely identifiable sentence fragments from any other novel. And you know people will be checking it particularly closely against the sentences in "It". And you'd better be sure not to say "Pennywise" anywhere, as that would be a trademark character. The bridge of the Enterprise-D is a trademark set design.

criddell 8y ago

The Constitution also guarantees property rights. You have the right to free expression, but that doesn't mean you can exercise that right on my wall.

grizzles 8y ago
So if I draw a perfect Mickey Mouse, can I hang it on my wall at home? Can I post it on my website? When exactly does my right to free expression become no longer exerciz-able? You can see what a slippery slope that would be.
- criddell 8y ago
  > When exactly does my right to free expression become no longer exerciz-able? You can see what a slippery slope that would be. I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't try to give you advice. I believe though you are asking about fair use and a lot has been written about that.
- ben_w 8y ago
  From what I remember (not a lawyer), the border between “that’s grand” and “right, you’re taking the mickey” is different between countries, and in particular the USA allows arbitrary reproduction for personal use while the UK forbids reproduction even for personal use. The edge cases are more complex than I have stated, in both countries, but courts have definitely had to answer the question “is it copyright infringement to load a computer program from (tape|drive|etc) into RAM”, so it’s not like they don’t know the simple definition is problematic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Co....
  - stan_rogers 8y ago
    You can't just say that without citing Dara Ó Briain.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jayess 8y ago

You are utterly and completely wrong. Edit - As an example: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/18411522197/insanity-making-wizard-oz-film-todays-ip-climate.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/18411522197/insan...

grizzles 8y ago
Your opinion is based on convention between a bunch of studios that have a self interest in preserving an asset portfolio. There is no case law that supports your opinion that I'm aware of. If I'm wrong, please do go ahead and cite it.

grizzles 8y ago

More elegantly stated: Copyright covers expressions of ideas, not ideas.