3 ms·

I wonder if one can claim a copyright on updating a list of dependencies with version tags. It's not really creative work.

graderjs 6y ago
I'm thinking more because they made a contribution they're a "contributor" who has copyright in the work. I think that's the case, I just wonder what the deal is with bots as per my question.
- yorwba 6y ago
  Being a contributor and owning copyright are two different things, because not all contributions are copyrightable. When a photographer takes a picture, the camera manufacturer contributed to the result (some smartphones even add a "shot with X camera" watermark by default) but that doesn't mean they own copyright. When an author uses a spell checker that suggests a correction, that doesn't grant the spell checker copyright of the resulting novel. The copyright owner of a mechanically produced creative work is the person who provided the input, not the person who built the mechanism.
  - graderjs 6y ago
    That's a nice sentiment that I understand and I get the argument. Tho I'll need and am hoping for a more reliable legally sound comment from GitHub or someone who's qualified to answer definitively. I'm also thinking about the case of, like, a typo contribution to a README, and considering if that would give a "contributor" a copyright claim on an owner's repo that the owner would need to get a release / assignment from when that owner wanted to sell their work. If that did, then it's sort of like a very low-effort "copyright troll" action to go around and make very small typo contributions on projects that don't have copyright assignment agreements, because then that work is forever beholden to that "contributor" in any future sale due diligence, I would imagine. I'm hoping I'm incorrect about this, but I do not have the legal background to know either way, hence the Ask HN.

3 ms·

I wonder if one can claim a copyright on updating a list of dependencies with version tags. It's not really creative work.

by speedgoose 6y ago

graderjs 6y ago
I'm thinking more because they made a contribution they're a "contributor" who has copyright in the work. I think that's the case, I just wonder what the deal is with bots as per my question.
- yorwba 6y ago
  Being a contributor and owning copyright are two different things, because not all contributions are copyrightable. When a photographer takes a picture, the camera manufacturer contributed to the result (some smartphones even add a "shot with X camera" watermark by default) but that doesn't mean they own copyright. When an author uses a spell checker that suggests a correction, that doesn't grant the spell checker copyright of the resulting novel. The copyright owner of a mechanically produced creative work is the person who provided the input, not the person who built the mechanism.
  - graderjs 6y ago
    That's a nice sentiment that I understand and I get the argument. Tho I'll need and am hoping for a more reliable legally sound comment from GitHub or someone who's qualified to answer definitively. I'm also thinking about the case of, like, a typo contribution to a README, and considering if that would give a "contributor" a copyright claim on an owner's repo that the owner would need to get a release / assignment from when that owner wanted to sell their work. If that did, then it's sort of like a very low-effort "copyright troll" action to go around and make very small typo contributions on projects that don't have copyright assignment agreements, because then that work is forever beholden to that "contributor" in any future sale due diligence, I would imagine. I'm hoping I'm incorrect about this, but I do not have the legal background to know either way, hence the Ask HN.