3 ms·
> Wouldn't this logic imply that operating systems are not copyrightable, or that works created using products from Adobe Systems Inc. are not copyrightable? O
by lawlessbricks 6y ago
> Wouldn't this logic imply that operating systems are not copyrightable, or that works created using products from Adobe Systems Inc. are not copyrightable?
Operating systems are copyright as literary work AFAIK.
You can copyright the output of a system AFAIK, but with Lego, the output is the system.
For example, if you make a graphic in photoshop, the result is it's own entity.
The result of building in lego may look like something new, but it exists as lego. My argument is a lego model is just pretty instructions that is merged with the work and cannot be separated.
Hoping a lawyer will pop in so I can pay them some money to answer this. :)
(I talked with one, and they agreed with my original logic. I'm looking for a few more to understand the spectrum.)
And to be clear, if you take a picture of your lego design, that photograph is 100% your copyright.
If you make a graphical depiction of your lego creation, that is 100% your copyright.
If you make something in lego -- is it copyrightable?
- 8note 6y agoA sound recording is just a combination of building blocks as well, individual frequencies with specific amplitudes and phase shifts. Why wouldn't the same argument apply?
- lawlessbricks 6y agoMy current theory (not a lawyer) is that a sound recording is 1 expression of the idea (captured in that specific way). That makes it copyrightable. I think Lego falls under merger doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction#Merger_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin...