> On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:20:35AM -0400, D. Jay Newman wrote:

> > Hmmm. Thinking of your cube project, you posted a description of it here.
> > I could have, just from that text description, made a version of it.
> > Probably not as artistic or polished, but the idea was the important
> > thing and from there the general outline follows.
> 
> But really, that's true of almost anything. I could show you a photo of
> any number of famous sculptures, and if you were a talented sculpture,
> you could bang out a copy. Nothing unusual about that.

Yes, but most of those famous sculptures aren't under copyright any
longer.

And I believe that I could see a description of a modern artwork and
"bang out" something similar (given the talent/skill) without infringing.
I assume this is how genres of art are created.

> > How would you feel about somebody looking at your site and creating
> > a version of their own cube (non-commercially, purely for their own
> > use and the amazement of their friends)?
> 
> Well, my understanding of copyright law is that first of all if you
> independently come up with an idea, you are not infringing, completely
> unlike a patent. However if it can be shown that you didn't come up with
> the idea independently, there is pretty broad scope for damages. Witness

The trouble is that copyright protects a specific expression of an idea.
Fair use also includes paradies. :)

In the US, at least, copyright protects derived works. For example, I
can't publish a continuation of a Roger Zelazny series even though he
died in the middle of a couple. At least, without the permission of the
copyright owner(s).

However I could write a novel containing many of the ideas in his books
without infringing on his copyright if the result didn't look like
a continuation of his books.

> all the suits against movie studios for stealing plots... You'd think
> that's pretty nebulous, but they win.

Some of them that I've seen are *very* nebulous. Of course, some of the
movies made from books seem like they aren't violated copyright. :)

> Of course, in the art market and the gallery system all of this doesn't
> matters. Your buyers enforce originality already, so long as you can get
> your work widely known you'll never have to worry about any sort of

I think getting work widely known is the problem. :)

> > How do you define "user-visible experience"?
> 
> I think it has to be basically what someone interacting with it
> experiences, in a gallery setting for example. Heck, the technical stuff
> could be defined as "anything that could be replaced, without the user
> noticing a difference"

I like the definition of technical stuff. I use it myself sometimes, though
I call it the "black box" theory.

> > This is a question you have to ask yourself.
> 
> Or for that matter lawyers and judges, they're the ones who'll be
> interpreting it. :)

Yes, but I was merely asking these questions to try to get you to think
on what *you* want to protect and if/how it is possible.

Good luck.
-- 
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
jay@sprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist