5 ms·
That's not how copyright works. In your example, the human author did not copy anything, and are thus legally in the clear.
by slavik81 7y ago
That's not how copyright works. In your example, the human author did not copy anything, and are thus legally in the clear.
- 93po 7y agoIn practice it is my understanding that this is how copyright works in the US. There doesn't need to be any intentional infringement - just the fact that it infringes is enough. If someone came up with "Harry Potter" as a main character name on their own they still wouldn't be able to publish a novel with that title.
- dane-pgp 7y agoSo are you saying that J.K. Rowling could be sued by the copyright holders of the 1969 film "Carry On Camping"? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064133/trivia?item=tr2738534 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064133/trivia?item=tr2738534
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoFWIW there's no copyright in names. Suing her under that premise would be almost certainly unsuccessful.
- anticensor 7y agoThis is copyright, not patent or registered mark. Copyright, by definition, restricts redistribution and copying, not independent recreation.
- 93po 7y agoHow does one prove independent recreation? It seems virtually impossible.
- anticensor 7y agoSimple: You do not presume guilt, hence independent recreation is the default assumption and it is copying/redistribution which needs to be proven.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoCopyright is a tort, the usual measure of proof is "balance of probabilities", you don't have to prove it, the plaintiff has to show that on balance the most likely truth is that the defendant copied. Keeping workshop notes, early revisions; getting works notarised; defensive publication; et cetera -- these are all means people use to guard against false allegations of tortuous infringement.