3 ms·

I write program "A," which I copyright. Somebody translates A into representation "B," which is functionally identical to A, without being literally identical.

I write program "A," which I copyright. Somebody translates A into representation "B," which is functionally identical to A, without being literally identical. This seems parallel to the following case: I write a blog in English. Somebody translates my words to Russian, creating a document that is semantically identical to my words. Copyright seems to apply here in a most appropriate way.

seabee 15y ago
I think your analogy is wrong. Copyrights apply to creative processes, which the translation from English to Russian would surely involve, or a hand-written port from one language/API to another. A machine translation from computer language A to B would not apply, since it is the work of a tool, not a human.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Are you saying that if I write a blog post and you translate it into Russian, I do not have a copyright over your translation of my blog post?
  - seabee 15y ago
    I clearly stated that copyright cover translation from English to Russian. I don't expect such miscomprehension from HN of all places. Edit: to clarify, I see you are questioning whether I'm classing a translation as a derivative work or a independent work. However, this is irrelevant to my assertion that a machine-generated translation confers no copyright protections at all, which is the situation with the github code.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - pasiaj 15y ago
    No. He's saying if you design a program that takes an input A of witch it creates the output B, you do not own the copyright to all programs that can create B out of A.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      Really? The word "translation" describes the output of a translator, not the translator itself. I don't think either of us are talking about copyrighting decompilers.
    - GrandMasterBirt 15y ago
      That's more about patents. Patent is a technique to convert A => B Copyright is work done such as a single tool A => B. Copyright does not apply to all instances of tools A => B as long as none of those tools copied anything from the original copyrighted tool. If you take the copyrighted tool and you transform it to something else using something you made or got, the work is not yours since you created a tool A => B completely based on the original copyrighted tool. The law is flimsy here and you would probably have to just go to court to settle it, this is not black and white.
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  Copyright prevents the creation if derivative works.
- ugh 15y ago
  So if I take a copyrighted article and translate it with Google Translate I can freely publish said machine translated article on my website? That doesn’t seem right.
- lutorm 15y ago
  So if I take someone's photograph and use ImageMagick to convert it to black and white, by your rationale it would not be covered by the copyright on the original photo? Like someone said, it is a derivative work. The copyright act says: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
  - seanalltogether 15y ago
    Proving that something is a derivative work is not so cut and dry, and in your case a lawyer may not be able to successfully argue that a black and white filter represents a derivative work. Even the Barack Obama Hope poster was never successfully argued one way or another as to whether it was a derivative work, and the 2 sides settled out of court.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Xurinos 15y ago
I am a little confused on where the lines are drawn, and hopefully someone can clear this up for me. Let's keep focused on copyright law; TOS covers some of these other issues, but I am curious where things like DMCA can apply. I am extending this question as this: I write program A. I compile program A into binary/executable A'. I copyright A and A'. (Is this a bad premise?) Here are my questions, for which the question is always "Does this violate copyright?" (1) Somebody translates A to B by renaming identifiers and reformatting whitespace. (2) Somebody translates A to B by refactoring one function in the code. (3) Somebody translates A to B by refactoring a huge majority of the functions in the code. (When is it no longer the same? This is similar to the N bars-of-music issue.) (4) Somebody translates A to B by treating it like a black box and reverse engineering on observation; they replicate most or all the behaviors in a language of their choice and release their code. (This covers some linux game conversion projects.) (5) Somebody translates A' to B', enabling the project to run on a different chipset. (6) Somebody translates A' to B, a reverse engineering that leaves it in the same programming language as the original language. (7) Somebody translates A' to B, a reverse engineering that leaves it in a different programming language from the original language. (8) Somebody runs A' twice on their own machine (two copies of the running image in memory). (9) Somebody runs A' one or multiple times on their own machine and provides VNC access to others to play with A'. (10) Somebody runs A' on their own machine, and the process is forked in a distributed fashion, allowing outsiders to run the process natively on their own client.
- raganwald 15y ago
  The expression "violates copyright" is confusing here. None of these ten things violate copyright if "somebody" has your permission to do them. Also, some permissions are implied. For example, I can copyright some code and post it on my web site. The very act of reading the code in a browser creates a copy of the code in your computer's memory, but permission to create that copy is implied by my posting it on the web. However, that implied permission doesn't extend to you reposting the same code on your web site.
  - Xurinos 15y ago
    Good point on the expression. However, that implied permission doesn't extend to you reposting the same code on your web site. I wonder if the technology changes this. Here is what comes to mind: Is it okay if in my copy I provided an attribution to the original author? How extensive does the attribution need to be? Is "raganwald wrote this" sufficient, or do I need a link to the original location? If it is a link, do I need to actively ensure the link is still valid, just in case you decide to change the location or stop publishing? If, after publishing your code once, you decide to retract it, can you force me to retract my attributed copy as well? What if my copy is a picture of your code? What if it is an iframe? And thank you to everyone for these kinds of answers; I think a lot of people have a number of strange opinions and buy into various myths with regards to copyright. Hopefully my questions have covered a good enough number of scenarios to help translate the legalese to layman's terms.

seabee 15y ago

I think your analogy is wrong. Copyrights apply to creative processes, which the translation from English to Russian would surely involve, or a hand-written port from one language/API to another. A machine translation from computer language A to B would not apply, since it is the work of a tool, not a human.

raganwald 15y ago
Are you saying that if I write a blog post and you translate it into Russian, I do not have a copyright over your translation of my blog post?
- seabee 15y ago
  I clearly stated that copyright cover translation from English to Russian. I don't expect such miscomprehension from HN of all places. Edit: to clarify, I see you are questioning whether I'm classing a translation as a derivative work or a independent work. However, this is irrelevant to my assertion that a machine-generated translation confers no copyright protections at all, which is the situation with the github code.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- pasiaj 15y ago
  No. He's saying if you design a program that takes an input A of witch it creates the output B, you do not own the copyright to all programs that can create B out of A.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Really? The word "translation" describes the output of a translator, not the translator itself. I don't think either of us are talking about copyrighting decompilers.
  - GrandMasterBirt 15y ago
    That's more about patents. Patent is a technique to convert A => B Copyright is work done such as a single tool A => B. Copyright does not apply to all instances of tools A => B as long as none of those tools copied anything from the original copyrighted tool. If you take the copyrighted tool and you transform it to something else using something you made or got, the work is not yours since you created a tool A => B completely based on the original copyrighted tool. The law is flimsy here and you would probably have to just go to court to settle it, this is not black and white.
AndrewDucker 15y ago
Copyright prevents the creation if derivative works.
ugh 15y ago
So if I take a copyrighted article and translate it with Google Translate I can freely publish said machine translated article on my website? That doesn’t seem right.
lutorm 15y ago
So if I take someone's photograph and use ImageMagick to convert it to black and white, by your rationale it would not be covered by the copyright on the original photo? Like someone said, it is a derivative work. The copyright act says: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
- seanalltogether 15y ago
  Proving that something is a derivative work is not so cut and dry, and in your case a lawyer may not be able to successfully argue that a black and white filter represents a derivative work. Even the Barack Obama Hope poster was never successfully argued one way or another as to whether it was a derivative work, and the 2 sides settled out of court.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Xurinos 15y ago

I am a little confused on where the lines are drawn, and hopefully someone can clear this up for me. Let's keep focused on copyright law; TOS covers some of these other issues, but I am curious where things like DMCA can apply. I am extending this question as this: I write program A. I compile program A into binary/executable A'. I copyright A and A'. (Is this a bad premise?) Here are my questions, for which the question is always "Does this violate copyright?" (1) Somebody translates A to B by renaming identifiers and reformatting whitespace. (2) Somebody translates A to B by refactoring one function in the code. (3) Somebody translates A to B by refactoring a huge majority of the functions in the code. (When is it no longer the same? This is similar to the N bars-of-music issue.) (4) Somebody translates A to B by treating it like a black box and reverse engineering on observation; they replicate most or all the behaviors in a language of their choice and release their code. (This covers some linux game conversion projects.) (5) Somebody translates A' to B', enabling the project to run on a different chipset. (6) Somebody translates A' to B, a reverse engineering that leaves it in the same programming language as the original language. (7) Somebody translates A' to B, a reverse engineering that leaves it in a different programming language from the original language. (8) Somebody runs A' twice on their own machine (two copies of the running image in memory). (9) Somebody runs A' one or multiple times on their own machine and provides VNC access to others to play with A'. (10) Somebody runs A' on their own machine, and the process is forked in a distributed fashion, allowing outsiders to run the process natively on their own client.

raganwald 15y ago
The expression "violates copyright" is confusing here. None of these ten things violate copyright if "somebody" has your permission to do them. Also, some permissions are implied. For example, I can copyright some code and post it on my web site. The very act of reading the code in a browser creates a copy of the code in your computer's memory, but permission to create that copy is implied by my posting it on the web. However, that implied permission doesn't extend to you reposting the same code on your web site.
- Xurinos 15y ago
  Good point on the expression. However, that implied permission doesn't extend to you reposting the same code on your web site. I wonder if the technology changes this. Here is what comes to mind: Is it okay if in my copy I provided an attribution to the original author? How extensive does the attribution need to be? Is "raganwald wrote this" sufficient, or do I need a link to the original location? If it is a link, do I need to actively ensure the link is still valid, just in case you decide to change the location or stop publishing? If, after publishing your code once, you decide to retract it, can you force me to retract my attributed copy as well? What if my copy is a picture of your code? What if it is an iframe? And thank you to everyone for these kinds of answers; I think a lot of people have a number of strange opinions and buy into various myths with regards to copyright. Hopefully my questions have covered a good enough number of scenarios to help translate the legalese to layman's terms.