3 ms·

How is it theft? The original source is prominently cited, the author of the blog post is an active participant to the original discussion, the whole point of t

by ot 3y ago

How is it theft? The original source is prominently cited, the author of the blog post is an active participant to the original discussion, the whole point of the post is to collect and summarize various sources in one place.

rcme 3y ago
Usually copying someone else’s work without permission is considered (intellectual property) theft. Also, this person just copied the initial work but isn’t as committed to keeping things up to date. Much better to use the original source.
- tomrod 3y ago
  Except in the case of citation.
  - rcme 3y ago
    No, citing who you copy doesn’t remove copyright protection.
    - swombat 3y ago
      Go look up "fair use" under copyright laws.
      - Symmetry 3y ago
        I did, there's nothing about including a citation to the original making something fair use. Although if I cite some work using its title like so Person *et al*(2023). "The Unbearable Lightness of Tardigades", *Little Creatures*, 27, 100-110 Then even though the title is really clever and creative copying it into my citation list is still fair use. EDIT: I guess you could argue that the absence or presence of a citation is a factor in the character of the use or the use's effect on the market value of the original with a straight face but it's very, very much not going to be either necessary or sufficient for either of those tests.
- adrianmonk 3y ago
  IANAL, but copying this table in the way they did seems OK under US copyright law. In the US, some compilations cannot be copyrighted and some can. Before a Supreme Court decision called Feist, copyright could be based on either "sweat of the brow" or creativity or both. Sweat of the brow is the work of taking data from original sources and putting it together. Creativity is something you add, like choosing what to include. (If I make a mere list of all restaurants at Disneyworld, that's sweat of the brow. If I make a list of the restaurants that are worth visiting, that's creative.) The Supreme Court decision was about one company copying another company's white pages phone book. (White pages are the simple name/number listings.) The court said sweat of the brow isn't enough. There must be some amount of creativity. It's a low bar, but it has to be there. So they said the white pages cannot be copyrighted, and copying the entire thing is allowed. About these LK-99 tables, the "Notes" and "Reliability of Claim" columns of the original table look creative to me. So I'd guess the table can be copyrighted. But the copy of the table didn't include those columns. It just included the factual data, and I think that's allowed. Sources: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_compilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_compilation (2) https://www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf (Sections IA and IB give the basic idea.)

by ot 3y ago

rcme 3y ago

Usually copying someone else’s work without permission is considered (intellectual property) theft. Also, this person just copied the initial work but isn’t as committed to keeping things up to date. Much better to use the original source.

tomrod 3y ago
Except in the case of citation.
- rcme 3y ago
  No, citing who you copy doesn’t remove copyright protection.
  - swombat 3y ago
    Go look up "fair use" under copyright laws.
    - Symmetry 3y ago
      I did, there's nothing about including a citation to the original making something fair use. Although if I cite some work using its title like so Person *et al*(2023). "The Unbearable Lightness of Tardigades", *Little Creatures*, 27, 100-110 Then even though the title is really clever and creative copying it into my citation list is still fair use. EDIT: I guess you could argue that the absence or presence of a citation is a factor in the character of the use or the use's effect on the market value of the original with a straight face but it's very, very much not going to be either necessary or sufficient for either of those tests.
adrianmonk 3y ago
IANAL, but copying this table in the way they did seems OK under US copyright law. In the US, some compilations cannot be copyrighted and some can. Before a Supreme Court decision called Feist, copyright could be based on either "sweat of the brow" or creativity or both. Sweat of the brow is the work of taking data from original sources and putting it together. Creativity is something you add, like choosing what to include. (If I make a mere list of all restaurants at Disneyworld, that's sweat of the brow. If I make a list of the restaurants that are worth visiting, that's creative.) The Supreme Court decision was about one company copying another company's white pages phone book. (White pages are the simple name/number listings.) The court said sweat of the brow isn't enough. There must be some amount of creativity. It's a low bar, but it has to be there. So they said the white pages cannot be copyrighted, and copying the entire thing is allowed. About these LK-99 tables, the "Notes" and "Reliability of Claim" columns of the original table look creative to me. So I'd guess the table can be copyrighted. But the copy of the table didn't include those columns. It just included the factual data, and I think that's allowed. Sources: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_compilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_compilation (2) https://www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf (Sections IA and IB give the basic idea.)