Creative Commons clarification

[Redrobes]

I feel better for substantially modifying my tile now

There needs to be a copyright reform so very very badly its all become a bit of a bad joke. One of those for which that phrase "Reductum Ad Absurdum" fits perfectly.

If you have a machine which makes set patterns from set input then surely the only thing that can be copyrighted is the choice of inputs because one leads directly to the other with no artistic input. Its like my 16x16 pattern producing app. Because there are no inputs to it then nothing it produces can be copyrighted because of it. And its like the copyright of the bestiary is just on the collection not on the images because the images existed already as public domain. Its the artistic bit of it that can be copyrighted. The program to create the pattern might be but the pattern comes from the program cannot. That would imply also that any Mandelbrot set pattern cannot be either if its input is not sufficiently artistic. Which I believe is how it is done.

It does also imply from extension that you could get two identical images one of which could be copyrighted if a person drew it and another which could not because it was generated randomly from a program. I guess thats similar to people trying to copyright numbers, simple words, or simple colors - theres a point at which its a reasonably complex enough thing to consider that it must have been artistically designed.

@Waldronate
I understand what your saying and what you mean and this was how I thought it was. But lets say I copied half of their images, color corrected them a bit and resized them. I.e. I am stripping away their choice of which images, the exact color and size and leave nothing but the pixel data pertaining to the image which is public domain and then I create a web site from these new images. How is that still a problem. Or I took the 3D laser scan Michelangelo "The David" sculpture data, rehashed a new math surface and chose a new set of 10 million points from it which were different from their original set. Still a problem ? I don't think it should be but I bet it would be.

For all these reasons are why I go with CC over public domain.

[Torq]

In most cases photographing artwork from a copyrighted work amounts to infringement of the copyright in that work. You can infringe someone else's work but in some cases you can claim copyright as against other people who infringe your right, provided you have sufficeint originality in your infringing copy. (Weird I know)

Also most countries that I'm aware of allow for copyright protection of compilations or databases, provided sufficient originality goes into the choice of items or the way in which they are ordered indexed or laid out. If you make such a compilation that doesn't mean you are not infringing the copyright of the creators of the things that go into the compilation, but it also does not mean you cant enforce copyright against infringers of your work provided, once again, there is sufficient originality to make the work capable of copyright. This coincides with what Waldronate is saying.

Neon, if you tweak the world sufficiently you have copyright. This does not mean you deprive the writers of the software of their copyright. Profantasy or FT or Wilbur still has copyright in the original generated image (if the output from those programs is computer genertaed rather than computer assisted), which you are allowed to use because they license you to do so.

Torq

[ravells]

The man knows whereof he speaks!!!

[waldronate]

So, ok, if I understand correctly, the original wolrd image I did is copyrighted by waldonrate (aka Joe Slayton), and the folks at Pro Fantasy because of the Wilbur Engine and the FT Software.

BUT, If I then tweak that world, fill some areas, flatten others, is the copyright then mine or theirs?

As I understand it, copyright for the FT output and CCx documents resides with the person who made them, not with the company who made the software. It's like writing a document with a word processor. All of the text is there to be discovered, but you make the decision regarding which letters to put in which order.

I have no claim or interest in your FT maps, just the original FT software. I'm pretty sure the same applies to ProFantasy. The search space for a given world in FT is in the billions for the most basic setting, the seed. Adding on the other variables to the mix gives far more possible combinations than there are particles in the universe. Selecting one, applying a color scheme, map projection, and so on results in substantial creative input on your part, making it an original work.

Symbol-based systems like CCx and Dundjinni are typically licensed somewhat like a font using for printing. The arrangement and compilation of elements is assumed to be creative and copyrightable by the individual or organization that created them. The individual elements (tha symbols in CCx, images in Dundjinni or glyphs in a symbol) are copyright the selling the company and those companies get very upset if you redistribute them in a manner that allows them to be reused by a third party without licensing.

[waldronate]

@Waldronate
I understand what your saying and what you mean and this was how I thought it was. But lets say I copied half of their images, color corrected them a bit and resized them. I.e. I am stripping away their choice of which images, the exact color and size and leave nothing but the pixel data pertaining to the image which is public domain and then I create a web site from these new images. How is that still a problem. Or I took the 3D laser scan Michelangelo "The David" sculpture data, rehashed a new math surface and chose a new set of 10 million points from it which were different from their original set. Still a problem ? I don't think it should be but I bet it would be.

I'm not a lawyer, of course, but making a simple derivative work of the original is the problem. In your first example, your work is based directly on their expression of their compilation, not on the original source material. As such it is a derivative work and subject to their copyright and licensing. If your work provides new insight using the original materials then it may be acceptable use, but the lines are very blurry and change over time.

The reworking of a data set as indicated in the second example may or may not generate a new work if you use a new algorithm to better highlight certain items of the data set (that is if your work is transformative). If you simply decimate the data set as in the first example then it's a trivial transformation and not subject to being claimed as a new work.

I hate to say it, but the Wikipedia article on derivative work isn't too bad. But, as always, I'm not a lawyer.

[Sigurd]

I think one the huge problems with the system is that even with the best intentions and honesty you might not get it right. You certainly might be discouraged from creating something potentially useful.

Conversely, as has been seen, if you game the system you can hope for abusive damages and disproportionate power. By no means am I saying that authors shouldn't be recognized but lying in the weeds hoping to sue someone for more than you would properly have received for a license is abusive.

I'm saddened by the chilling affect it has on good projects. I really like things like the Creative Commons and the GPL. At least they announce themselves and their expectations.


Hypothetically, what happens if one contributes work to a CC project that is subsequently turned into a commercial venture. If your contribution helps make it commercial but you did not gain from or know of the commercial abuse can you be blamed?

ie A brilliant compilatoin of all things Cartographer's Guild is made by Smeagol. It's so slick Sauroman comes along and repackages is (slightly) and sells it without consent or sharing any profits. Does Smeagol have anything to worry about from authors earlier in the chain of authorship?

Sigurd.

[Redrobes]

@Sigurd - If its CC licensed as non commercial - the NC bit - then you cant legally sell it on.

@waldronate - I agree that is the situation. My issue with all of this is that the first copyrighted scan should be copyrighting just the new elements of the compilation. If you took the compilation bits away from it that should leave the public domain bit left. Just because I take a photo of a public domain work should not mean that I should be able to copyright the public domain bit in the picture. My photo might be copyright but the image which its of isn't. So if I create a derivative work that strips away my new artistic input on the image - which is practically none whatsoever in the case of a straight up digi photo then I ought to be alright. I dont think you should be able to flatbed scan a public domain image and have any rights at all over that image. Now I know thats not entirely the way it works but that was the intention of copyright in the beginning.

My opinion is that if you choose to meticulously duplicate a public domain work then even if your scanner is expensive or that it took days to do it is not anyone elses concern. The image or shape is still public domain and that goes even if the original was locked away and the duplicator has the only access to it. If he didn't want it published then he shouldn't have published it. Once he has then its a published public domain work which everyone should be able to use.

The current situation is that there is no public domain in any real sense. Every time I take an original public domain work and put a photo of it on the web then my web site image copy is copyright. The only public domain stuff is stuff which I personally have copied from the original. Thats not what the word 'public' means at all - it should be known as 'personal domain'.

Edit -- that wikipedia link is an excellent summary of the state of a derivative work and seems to suggest that the way I think it ought to work is the way is should be implemented in law. I ought to be ok to be able to take a subset of these bestiary images and use them it seems.