5 ms·

"The lynchpin of copyright is originality and creativity. Are the Java API's original and creative? That's the only relevant question.[2]" This is 100% false o

"The lynchpin of copyright is originality and creativity. Are the Java API's original and creative? That's the only relevant question.[2]" This is 100% false of course. My shopping lists are creative and original, but certainly not copyrightable. You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part, or whether the literal implementation only is protected). "[2] Having written internal API's for software products, I would say they definitely are! API design is hard work that requires a lot of careful thought. Making a beautiful API is as much a creative expression as writing a sonnet or a short story, and is no less deserving of copyright protection." 1. API's are not expressions of anything. They are literally interfaces. An outline of a story in abstract terms is not copyrightable. The actual story is. Such should it be with API's. API's are not copyrightable, their implementations are. 2. The fact that it is hard work and requires careful thought is 100% irrelevant in united states copyright law, since we have no sweat of the brow doctrine.

rayiner 12y ago
> You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part, or whether the literal implementation only is protected). To me, an "API" is just the "structure, sequence, and organization part," distinct from the implementation. I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API. So the question is whether that (whatever you call it) is copyrightable. And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative. > 1. API's are not expressions of anything. They are literally interfaces. An outline of a story in abstract terms is not copyrightable. The actual story is. Such should it be with API's. API's are not copyrightable, their implementations are. 2. The fact that it is hard work and requires careful thought is 100% irrelevant in united states copyright law, since we have no sweat of the brow doctrine. Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity. Take, for example, the POSIX file API's. That specific combination of orthogonal function calls, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. And it's a distinct creative expression from, e.g., the Win32 file API's, which express similar functionality in a very different way.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >* the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality* // If you pass the file descriptors because that looks pretty, because of the beauty of the form and not for any functional effect. And, if the same functional effect (if there is one) can be achieved in other obvious and equally functional ways, so the only reason to do it this way is aesthetic, then yes - the essential elements are creative. Just because you can achieve the same technical outcome in a different way doesn't make this way specifically creative however. If an obvious way to create a specific technical effect creates a specific art-like outcome too then it's probably not copyrightable. Tyre treads, say: if your tread is created to appear different and there's no other reason to make it that way then you're covered by copyright; but if they have a technical benefit and you don't have other IP protection (patent or design patent) then others are free to duplicate that design because they are allowed to generate that technical outcome and the visual "artistry" is subordinate to that it's emergent rather than being directed.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  " I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API" Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names. ". And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative." Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form. "Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity." It 100% is not indicative of this. It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages. It requires a lot of thought to think through physics and math problems, and write down equations. Neither is subject to copyright protection. "the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. " However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection.
  - 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

> You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part, or whether the literal implementation only is protected). To me, an "API" is just the "structure, sequence, and organization part," distinct from the implementation. I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API. So the question is whether that (whatever you call it) is copyrightable. And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative. > 1. API's are not expressions of anything. They are literally interfaces. An outline of a story in abstract terms is not copyrightable. The actual story is. Such should it be with API's. API's are not copyrightable, their implementations are. 2. The fact that it is hard work and requires careful thought is 100% irrelevant in united states copyright law, since we have no sweat of the brow doctrine. Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity. Take, for example, the POSIX file API's. That specific combination of orthogonal function calls, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. And it's a distinct creative expression from, e.g., the Win32 file API's, which express similar functionality in a very different way.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>* the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality* // If you pass the file descriptors because that looks pretty, because of the beauty of the form and not for any functional effect. And, if the same functional effect (if there is one) can be achieved in other obvious and equally functional ways, so the only reason to do it this way is aesthetic, then yes - the essential elements are creative. Just because you can achieve the same technical outcome in a different way doesn't make this way specifically creative however. If an obvious way to create a specific technical effect creates a specific art-like outcome too then it's probably not copyrightable. Tyre treads, say: if your tread is created to appear different and there's no other reason to make it that way then you're covered by copyright; but if they have a technical benefit and you don't have other IP protection (patent or design patent) then others are free to duplicate that design because they are allowed to generate that technical outcome and the visual "artistry" is subordinate to that it's emergent rather than being directed.
DannyBee 12y ago
" I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API" Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names. ". And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative." Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form. "Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity." It 100% is not indicative of this. It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages. It requires a lot of thought to think through physics and math problems, and write down equations. Neither is subject to copyright protection. "the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. " However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection.
- 12y ago