a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: Jon Kirwan on 18 Apr 2010 15:55 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:37:14 -0400, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> >You can violate the copyright of a >> >photograph by using similar composition. >> >> Example, please. This sounds almost crazy to me and I'd like >> to see just how "similar" you mean to suggest here. > >One that I am personally familiar with is the owner of a >software games company had a very leather jacket that >made him look like Indiana Jones and was successfully >sued for having his own image on his product with a generic >background of a central American jungle scene. > >Search for details on some of the Getty Museum >copyright suites. Not all of them are exact images. Can't find anything much here. I've tried the following: +"Getty Museum" copyright suit Getty Museum copyright suit +"Getty Museum" "copyright suit" indiana jones and so on. I found this, but upon reading further saw it wasn't anything close: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Greek-bronze-will-stay-in-the-Getty-Villa%20/20504 I did try. Maybe your familiarity can get you closer to something usable? Best of all would be a court document with a legal decision expressed, of course. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 18 Apr 2010 16:10 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:46:12 -0400, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it >> is for educational research purposes or personal use. So I >> guess it is good it worked out that way. > >Why should education and personal use be exempted, or >for that matter why should library of congress be exempted? I believe educational research purposes already are exempted, aren't they? Under "fair use," limited copying without the permission of the owner is allowed for some kinds of teaching and research, if I recall. And there are exceptions also for the (entire?) reproduction by libraries and archives, memory serving. Regarding personal use, I didn't mean to suggest borrowing a library copy, copying it for personal use, then returning the original to a library. Though I sometimes wonder. I was thinking more about making a second copy to hold elsewhere against the risk of fire or water damage, for example. I certainly would also consider just buying another copy. But I think that may be allowed. Also, I believe there is a commercial value consideration in law in the US, and the courts look at the market impact of the action taken as to whether or not it is 'fair use.' Anyway, that is what I was thinking about when I wrote less, before. >> Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit >> illustrates a boundary. An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown >> to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions. >> The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her >> copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain' >> her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that >> was different from Amistad. They were quite similar on most >> other accounts, though, according to what I've read about >> this case. > >A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte. I was addressing myself to your assertion about violating "the copyright of a novel just by using the same plot lines." A single example is enough to muddy up that water. >> >There are real teeth in copyrights if they are exercised. Look at >> >some of the judgements in the music and movie industry. It >> >is not just a copy and on line distribution it extends to music and >> >musical arrangements. >> >> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__ >> exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is >> already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet >> you provide your own contrary evidence. > >Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can >happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights. >The choice to exercise them is not always made. By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as much because they have patents, but that if software patents are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the copyright violations more than before? Is that your point? Jon
From: Didi on 18 Apr 2010 16:42 On Apr 18, 5:35 pm, David Brown <david.br...(a)hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote: > ... > .... I don't really object > to people having rights over their creations and who can copy them - I > can't see how there is any moral or ethical justification for these > rights being valid 70 years after the author/creator is dead. David, this is spot on. Dimiter
From: Walter Banks on 18 Apr 2010 21:32 Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__ > >> exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is > >> already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet > >> you provide your own contrary evidence. > > > >Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can > >happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights. > >The choice to exercise them is not always made. > > By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you > seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as > much because they have patents, but that if software patents > are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the > copyright violations more than before? Is that your point? The comment you are referring to came in response to the apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of software patents. My arguments have been consistently that copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than software patents. I base that on significantly longer protection and court precedents over damage awards that could be based on actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally change actual over all practice. Software patents give a lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations for a long period of time. Would the dropping of software patents make copyright protection stronger? I don't but the sheer threshold of getting a software patent made a lot of patentable software relatively unprotected because the authors didn't know that copyright protection could also have provided them with a lot of adequate protection through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases w.. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: terryc on 18 Apr 2010 22:03
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:46:12 -0400, Walter Banks wrote: > Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it is for >> educational research purposes or personal use. So I guess it is good >> it worked out that way. > > Why should education and personal use be exempted, or for that matter > why should library of congress be exempted? They are not cart blanche (sp), but under fair use, e.g. parts could be reproduced to illustrate educational points, for analysis, for crit?que, etc. > |