5 ms·

I suppose it makes sense from the perspective of copyright law, which protects artifacts. After all, one could say the same for quoting from a famous literary w

by sriku 6y ago

I suppose it makes sense from the perspective of copyright law, which protects artifacts. After all, one could say the same for quoting from a famous literary work .."ha now they're valuing literature in terms of number of words of prose!"

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The dissent clearly highlights the fallacy of the ruling, where it discussed the importance of the "heart" of the work, rather than the portion of exact lines copied. Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter.
- drwiggly 6y ago
  They do state, copy-write isn't the same in the programming world. Programming is always functional in nature, unlike a book.
- jayd16 6y ago
  >Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter. Would that be a copyright infringement? Probably just trademark infringement at that point?
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    It would be trademark infringement to use the names, it would be copyright infringement to use the meaningful content of the plot and story.
    - mattkrause 6y ago
      Not sure that’s correct. Copyright attaches to the actual text (illustrations, etc; whatever is “fixed in a tangible form”), not the ideas. You could write a story about a boy of humble origins who is whisked off to a special school, discovers he’s special, and fights evil. There aren’t that many original plots, after all.... You’ll only get into trouble if the main character is called Harry Potter of 10 Privett Drive, where he resides with his mother’s sister and her awful family, and he later attends Hogwarts, etc.
      - Phrodo_00 6y ago
        While true, there's been (imo wrong, as it breaks the Idea–expression dichotomy) expansion of copyright to things like characters[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fictional_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...
      - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
        Copyright covers derivative works. If a story is plainly the same with names changed, the original copyright extends to it. This can be applied to the point of absurdity in music copyrights.
        mattkrause 6y ago
        The derivative work has to be literally derived from the original "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." (per 17 USC 101). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 The merger and scenes a faire doctrine permit lots of overlap in terms of themes, tropes and set dressing. You could certainly write a coming-of-age story set in a magical boarding school; indeed, Harry Potter is neither the first nor the last such novel. One of the classic cases is Walker v. Time Life. The two works, which were found to be non-infringing, both start with a double murder of two cops (one Black, one white) in the South Bronx, both feature demoralized Irish-American cops, and both have similar tropes (rats, cop-talk, etc). A reviewer might reasonably describe it as derivative (and a few did, I think), but not legally so. What you probably couldn't do is publish the (non-parodic) story of Perry Hotter and his substantially-similar adventures at Pigworts, though that's also absolutely spoiling for a trademark fight. Music gets weird because it a) seems like there are a lot of possible note sequences but b) there aren't really.
  - zeroonetwothree 6y ago
    It’s generally not trademark infringement to refer to the actual thing the trademark refers to (”nominative use”). This would actually be a claim unlikely to succeed unless you are intentionally claiming that are writing the true original Harry Potter stories.
    - max-ibel 6y ago
      Tell that to the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle estate :) I don't know if their beef is with copyright vs trademark.
  - maxlybbert 6y ago
    I know of one legal blogger who complains that certain copyright lawsuits really ought to be trademark suits (e.g., https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2007/11/accio-lawsuit.html https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2007/11/accio-lawsuit.h... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tangent-56-just-another.html https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tan... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-end-of-beginning.html https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-end... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tangent-72-titles-not.html https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tan... ). But the courts generally play along and accept “copyright” suits that seem to be judged on trademark principles (but punished according to copyright law).
  - sriku 6y ago
    Would it violate copyright to take a painting's colour palette and produce a different work with it?
- gamblor956 6y ago
  To use your Harry Potter comparison, it would be like asserting that Magic Boy Adventures violates Harry Potter's copyright because one of the characters in MBA was similar to the Neville Longbottom. Or in other words, a tiny fraction of the original work would essentially be allowed to monopolize the entire space of works involving magical kids going to school. (And this is why Justice Thomas is widely regarded as the least competent justice of at least the past half century.)
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Incorrect, because as Justice Thomas states, the "heart" of the work being copied is at issue, not a given percentage. Neville Longbottom is obviously not the "heart" of what a Harry Potter book is. Presumably the issue would be if one wrote a book substantially about the same character as Harry Potter who went through the same plot events in significant detail, but only 0.4% of the sentences were identical and the main character's name was Barry.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Incorrect, because the "heart" of the work is not being copied, and therefore, the entirety of Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion is just pointless blathering. Thomas would allow copyright on code regardless of any creativity. This would destroy the software industry. Anyone who is first in time would monopolize entire swaths of software functionality. And that is what he wants. Thomas is an ideologue, and his sole goal in allowing the copyrighting of code is to destroy the tech industry, which he views as hostile to Republicans. You can see it in the logic of his dissent, which would require the court to override decades of settled case law all supporting the proposition that code and other functional expression. In order to justify his nonsensical arguments, Thomas is forced to come up with an entirely new category of code that is not supported by legislative history or judicial history. Thomas' only justification for this category is...that it's "not fair" to a multi-billion dollar company that the non-copyrightable portions of their code were copied by another corporation. Pity the poor multi-billion dollar corporation, they just can't ever get a break. Even he notes that his dissent is nonsensical when he admits "declaring code is 'inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas.'
- sriku 6y ago
  "Harry Potter and the methods of rationality" - affly known as HPMOR - https://www.hpmor.com/ https://www.hpmor.com/

by sriku 6y ago

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

The dissent clearly highlights the fallacy of the ruling, where it discussed the importance of the "heart" of the work, rather than the portion of exact lines copied. Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter.

drwiggly 6y ago
They do state, copy-write isn't the same in the programming world. Programming is always functional in nature, unlike a book.
jayd16 6y ago
>Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter. Would that be a copyright infringement? Probably just trademark infringement at that point?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  It would be trademark infringement to use the names, it would be copyright infringement to use the meaningful content of the plot and story.
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    Not sure that’s correct. Copyright attaches to the actual text (illustrations, etc; whatever is “fixed in a tangible form”), not the ideas. You could write a story about a boy of humble origins who is whisked off to a special school, discovers he’s special, and fights evil. There aren’t that many original plots, after all.... You’ll only get into trouble if the main character is called Harry Potter of 10 Privett Drive, where he resides with his mother’s sister and her awful family, and he later attends Hogwarts, etc.
    - Phrodo_00 6y ago
      While true, there's been (imo wrong, as it breaks the Idea–expression dichotomy) expansion of copyright to things like characters[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fictional_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      Copyright covers derivative works. If a story is plainly the same with names changed, the original copyright extends to it. This can be applied to the point of absurdity in music copyrights.
      - mattkrause 6y ago
        The derivative work has to be literally derived from the original "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." (per 17 USC 101). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 The merger and scenes a faire doctrine permit lots of overlap in terms of themes, tropes and set dressing. You could certainly write a coming-of-age story set in a magical boarding school; indeed, Harry Potter is neither the first nor the last such novel. One of the classic cases is Walker v. Time Life. The two works, which were found to be non-infringing, both start with a double murder of two cops (one Black, one white) in the South Bronx, both feature demoralized Irish-American cops, and both have similar tropes (rats, cop-talk, etc). A reviewer might reasonably describe it as derivative (and a few did, I think), but not legally so. What you probably couldn't do is publish the (non-parodic) story of Perry Hotter and his substantially-similar adventures at Pigworts, though that's also absolutely spoiling for a trademark fight. Music gets weird because it a) seems like there are a lot of possible note sequences but b) there aren't really.
- zeroonetwothree 6y ago
  It’s generally not trademark infringement to refer to the actual thing the trademark refers to (”nominative use”). This would actually be a claim unlikely to succeed unless you are intentionally claiming that are writing the true original Harry Potter stories.
  - max-ibel 6y ago
    Tell that to the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle estate :) I don't know if their beef is with copyright vs trademark.
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  I know of one legal blogger who complains that certain copyright lawsuits really ought to be trademark suits (e.g., https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2007/11/accio-lawsuit.html https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2007/11/accio-lawsuit.h... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tangent-56-just-another.html https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tan... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-end-of-beginning.html https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-end... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tangent-72-titles-not.html https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tan... ). But the courts generally play along and accept “copyright” suits that seem to be judged on trademark principles (but punished according to copyright law).
- sriku 6y ago
  Would it violate copyright to take a painting's colour palette and produce a different work with it?
gamblor956 6y ago
To use your Harry Potter comparison, it would be like asserting that Magic Boy Adventures violates Harry Potter's copyright because one of the characters in MBA was similar to the Neville Longbottom. Or in other words, a tiny fraction of the original work would essentially be allowed to monopolize the entire space of works involving magical kids going to school. (And this is why Justice Thomas is widely regarded as the least competent justice of at least the past half century.)
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Incorrect, because as Justice Thomas states, the "heart" of the work being copied is at issue, not a given percentage. Neville Longbottom is obviously not the "heart" of what a Harry Potter book is. Presumably the issue would be if one wrote a book substantially about the same character as Harry Potter who went through the same plot events in significant detail, but only 0.4% of the sentences were identical and the main character's name was Barry.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Incorrect, because the "heart" of the work is not being copied, and therefore, the entirety of Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion is just pointless blathering. Thomas would allow copyright on code regardless of any creativity. This would destroy the software industry. Anyone who is first in time would monopolize entire swaths of software functionality. And that is what he wants. Thomas is an ideologue, and his sole goal in allowing the copyrighting of code is to destroy the tech industry, which he views as hostile to Republicans. You can see it in the logic of his dissent, which would require the court to override decades of settled case law all supporting the proposition that code and other functional expression. In order to justify his nonsensical arguments, Thomas is forced to come up with an entirely new category of code that is not supported by legislative history or judicial history. Thomas' only justification for this category is...that it's "not fair" to a multi-billion dollar company that the non-copyrightable portions of their code were copied by another corporation. Pity the poor multi-billion dollar corporation, they just can't ever get a break. Even he notes that his dissent is nonsensical when he admits "declaring code is 'inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas.'
sriku 6y ago
"Harry Potter and the methods of rationality" - affly known as HPMOR - https://www.hpmor.com/ https://www.hpmor.com/