Forum Moderators: not2easy
Question: Who now owns the copyright of that work?
It was not written by a human, and I guess computers cannot own copyright rights? Or is the copyright of the 500 random words in that order automatically assigned to the writer of the software? Or is there no copyright rights at all?
Help? :)
You can certainly not own any copyright because you did not use any creativity.
I think what you would want to do is to Patent the process . the software
my 2c
I guess I'll go do some more reading.
I would say the owner of dictionary copyright owns the copyright and you made an unliscensed derivative product.
Oh come on, you can't hold copyright on commongly used words :)
Maker of dictionary holds copyright on said dictionary but usage of words from dictionary to create not a dictionary is not a derivative work by any stretch of imagination.
The copyright on generated text is held whoever used product to generate said text, unless you signed software license to state otherwise (might not be enforceible).
I do not actually know if dictionaries can carry copyright. I assume so since there are different ways to define words. However, if as previous people have asserted dictionaries are not copyrightable, than the derivative work would also not be copyrightable since it still has no creativity.
Syzygy
If it's your 'machine', creating random strings of words (which you've published) - that someone else wants to commercialise - then it's your copyright. The work is unique to you (or your 'machine')...
However, if the randomness is such that it can be defined as being purely random, and you cannot prove that your work was a source material, or that you (or your 'machine') influenced the 'copyist' in any way, then that's where you call in the lawyers...
The lawyers then argue the point for years...
;-)
Syzygy
Randomness (which, I guaranteee is very very hard to achieve in a computer), in itself is unique.
Using words from a dictionary is not any copyright violation, what so ever.
The material that your computer program generated is, 100% copyrighted by the person running the program and is generating the text (or whatever else). Mandelbrot, Sierpinski and other fractal images comes to mind! Those are clearly copyrightable.
There are already several precedents to this.
There are various haiku generating programs. The generated haikus are owned by the person owning the rights to the output of the software.
Of course you have to make sure the software does not have any licensing issues.
Years ago, I have developed a program that used a "random" seed, then from statistical analysis of previous works by various musicians, I generated new music - in the style, melody, etc., and very much likeness of the original composer. I own the copyright to ALL material that program generated. All of it.
Randomness has nothing to do with the copyright. Some paintings appear to be completely random plotches of paint. Is the copyright owned by the painter or the paint manufacturer, or the canvas manufacturer? Clearly, it involved the painter to do something with the paint, brush and canvas to generate the resulting "painting".
It would take six Johnnie Cochran's and a dozen lobotomized jury members to see it otherwise.
Nor can you copyright words (Trademark, perhaps in certain cases)
The generation of text is an idea, the text is what may be copyright. As you generate the text (or at least instigate it) the copyright would be yours.
Otherwise they could copyright the entire written language - any book or article etc - on the basis that their random text generator could generate everything that may be written in the future.
This they cannot do.
If I use Photoshop my pictures don't become the property of Adobe. Even if I use the automated features which would be similar to the auto text generator.
zoo
PS. How could they prove their text generator did generate the text anyway?
But to get to the core of what you were intending to ask, if the results were copyrightable, the copyright would go to the person running the program that generates the output.
The program is simply a tool. Like running a word processor.
That result could change if the input was copyrightable. Something creating stories out of random sentences that were in Steven King novels, would have completely different copyright concerns than one using words from a dictionary.
Now, if you have a real case in mind and were trying to come up with a more generic example, then you can be sure that advice for the ramdomized dictionary program will have little to do with a real world example with different inputs.
Whilst you may think so, others may differ. The value of the work is immaterial to the laws regarding Intellectual Property, of which Copyright is but one part.
>and therefore it is unlikely that you would be able to get any copyright on it.
Copyright covers what you create, not the value of the created work.
Copyright exists in the work regardless of the effort expended or the tools used to create that work. Therefor, if you set in place a series of preceedures (software or whatever) that creates a work to your design, then you hold the copyright in that resultant work or works. Moreover, in this case you would also hold the copyright in the created software which is in itself a created work.
As always, this is but my opinion and should not be taken for legal advise. Should you or any member of your team be caught ... oh, sorry, wrong program.
Onya
Woz
Whilst you may think so, others may differ.
That is true. But unlike most "others", I have done my homework on this issue.
The value of the work is immaterial to the laws regarding Intellectual Property, of which Copyright is but one part.
While the bar is very low, there is a level that must be surpassed.
Basically all the texts that I have read on the subject basically require that there be some effort and creativity put into the work on the part of the person claiming copyright. There is both a quality and quantity judgement. It is very minimal, but it is there.
A randomly generated list of words ain't going to cut it. Even a less randomly generated list of words, like a meta keywords line in a file, simply does not qualify for copyright.
From copyright.gov:
SUBJECT MATTER OF COPYRIGHTCopyright protection under the copyright code (title 17, section 102, U.S. Code) extends only to “original works of authorship.” The statute states clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements.
While their example is the various short phrases, a random list of words would most certainly fall in the same category.
You might also want to aquaint yourself with "de minimis" which is a term that a ruling on the issue would certainly include.
>>value of the work is immaterial
>While the bar is very low, there is a level that must be surpassed.
No actually, it isn't about wuality at all.
>some effort and creativity put into the work on the part of the person claiming copyright.
True, but there is no distinction about the process they use to create that work, whether it be markings in clay, pen and paper, computer, or dollops of paint on a piece of bark. The process is immaterial, copyright is only about the resultant creation.
>There is both a quality and quantity judgement. It is very minimal, but it is there.
Um no, actually it isn't. Quality or Value Judgement is immaterial, copyright is only about the resultant creation.
>A randomly generated list of words ain't going to cut it.
The point is not whether it is a randomly generated list of words but rather the processes and criteria used to create those words. People are getting hung up on two words - random and list. Whether it is random and whether is is a list or not is very much open to conjecture. However, the deciding factor is that the author took specific steps to create that string of words and that is why it is copyrightable, if that is a word.
Some of the best works in the field of modern art were created by the artist throwing paint at a canvas in a seemingly random fashion with the intent of achieving a specific result. That is art and subject to copyright. However, if you stand on the the road throwing paint at the side of a house, you would probably be arrested for, well, something. It is all about context, purpose and the resultant creation.
For example, what was once reviled as an abomination in our cities, is now regarded a legitimate artform - Graffiti.
The quote you give from copyright.gov states "Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements." It says nothing about random as that is a value judgement which is outside the bounds of copyright. Copyright is simply about creation and the protection of that created work.
>You might also want to aquaint yourself with
Hehe, trust me, as a Composer/Songwriter/Author of many decades, I have done my homework, many times.
Onya
Woz
You have also not shown any sort of law or caselaw to support your position that computer generated, random, meaningless giberish 500 words in length is copyrightable.
It is not art. It is not a literary work of authorship. There is no "heart" of the work that can be defined. It is a random ordering of "data" that is in the public domain that has no value of any sort.
Granted, you could "claim" copyright on it, and it will not be worth anyone's time to try and fight it. Hell, I know a guy that "copyrighted" an invention of his. But it ain't a copyright unless the courts will award you damages, and I would be shocked if they would do that. It has far too much in common with all the works that are considered uncopyrightable.
Creatitvity is the key here. Everything I have read indicates you need a minimum level of humanity/inspiration/artisitc zest/zeitgist/whatever you call it spark of creativity. Pure facts don't make the grade. Random output don't make the grade.
I do disagree a bit on the example of the random splotches of paint on a canvas. I don't think the distinction results from art being treated differently than text, but that the random splotches of paint are not really random. The artist chooses how hard to fling the brush, what direction, what color to use, etc.
If you had a machine that had access to all color combinations and randomly chose which to use and randomly chose how to apply the paint, it might not be copyright protected. But even with that setup an artist still has to choose what kind of paint and canvas to use.
USA
Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. V. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99 (2d. Cir. 1951).In 1951, the 2nd circuit explained that only a modest grade of originality is required to secure a copyright in a work of art.30 The court in Alfred Bell ruled that striking uniqueness, ingenuity, and novelty are not required of a copyright holder.31 The Court’s de minimis standard for originality supports the user’s claim for copyright status of a computer-generated work of art. By "tinkering" with the iteration inputs and transformation selections, a user can make a fairly convincing argument that his or her actions have contributed directly to the originality of the particular Mandelbrot Set.
UK
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, ch. 48, §§ 9(3), 178 (United Kingdom).In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.11
In plain English - a computer generated output does not even have to require an excessive originality...
I am highly disappointed in the comments of "no literary or artistic value" and "random, meaningless giberish".
Do you consider the following lines gibberish?
bocibocitarkasefulesefarkaodamegyunklakniaholtejetkapni
boglokonifarkonumjikalomnabrokusgifarszaemzikremlipontok
In a book by copyright lawyer Stephen Fishman, he explains this distinction as
the presense of human "choices" would make a work of art created by a machine protected by copyright. For example, spin art is protectable because the person using the spin art machine decides what colors to use and when to drop the paint onto the spinning platter.{from The Public Domain page 5/15}
The original post described
works produced by mechanical processes or random selection, without any contribution by a human author [which] are not protected by copyright {same source}
Seems to me that if a machine can even enter into the possiblility of copyright ownership (as posited by the original post), the answer is going to turn out that nobody owns copyright.
If someone were to write a program that did the same thing, their method of getting from A to B would more than likely not be the same thus MORE creativity.
Many comments were made about the end result of a program such as with Photoshop being copyrightable but Adobe not owning any copyrights. That makes sense and should apply to your situation. The programmer of this random generator would not have copyright on the material unless they are given that right in their license agreement.
Others have said that you can't copyright the generated work because it involved no creativity, uniqueness or effort on the humans part. If it is truly random and cannot be created again, have someone prove that the work was created randomly... they can't prove it, otherwise, it wouldn't be random!
Interesting posts. :)
BigDave and I have gone back-and-forth disagreeing on copyright issues before, but on this one I think we are in total agreement. (He'll probably disagree with us agreeing, though happy! ).
Not this time I won't disagree with you. Though it may not seem that way, I really don't take positions just to get into arguments. (or at least most of the time I don't)
Do you consider the following lines gibberish?bocibocitarkasefulesefarkaodamegyunklakniaholtejetkapni
boglokonifarkonumjikalomnabrokusgifarszaemzikremlipontok
Yes.
But you put human effort into typing that gibberish. That is different than what was described.
But as it is, I suspect that you would get differing responses from different courts on whether you could claim copyright on those specific lines, with more courts ruling against copyright than for copyright.
By creating the program that creates the random text you are being creative.
But the copyright is in the program, not the output. If you type a bunch of text into your favorite word processor, the text would be copyrighted by you, not the author of the word processor.
For the writer of the program to be able to claim any copyright at all in the output of the program, something that they have written must be part of that output. But even in those cases, their only copyright is in the piece that they themselves wrote.
If it is truly random and cannot be created again
Flip a coin. Alright, that was random but how long do you think it would take to recreate the result by repeating the random process?
The programmer of this random generator would not have copyright on the material unless they are given that right in their license agreement.
You cannot transfer copyright with a license agreement. There has to be a written agreement from the owner of the copyright that transfers the copyright.
Adobe could no more have their license transfer your copyright to them, than they could use their license to transfer ownership of your house to them.
What the license could do, and the TOS of many websites effectively do, is specify that you license your work to them in a specific manner, in exhange for the use of your site/program.
So far what I geather is,
a. random material is not copyrightable
b. if there is not "sufficient" effort is put into it then it is not copyrightable
c. ...?
webaddict. I see and agree with your point regarding the "development" of the program is the process of creativity, despite that the output is "random" - and in turn it is a perfect reponse to cat5's and figment88's comments.
You kind of do own the copyright to it cat5. Read the TOS #22, #27 & #29. ;-)
BigDave, the second line was random, the first line is actually not, and is a song(not U.S.). My point that I try to show is just because it looks random, or giberish, or non-conforming, it does not necessarily mean it is meaningless.
Following webaddict's comment,someone did put forth an effort to design a code that generates random output. A program's copyright is protecting the program from being copied or reproduced, not the output of the program. Similar to our painting, patents protect the brush and the paint composition, not what the brush, paint and painter produced.
BigDave, the second line was random, the first line is actually not, and is a song(not U.S.). My point that I try to show is just because it looks random, or giberish, or non-conforming, it does not necessarily mean it is meaningless.
Then you are making my point instead of disputing it.
That "song" is an actual creative work of a human, and would be protected as a song. If you went into court showing that work as being part of that song, it would receive more protection than if you were to walk in and say that it is a randomly generated list of letters.
I am assuming that the song works something like the song bsursucsimim (be as you are, as you see, as I am, I am). I am still unconvinced that you could receive a literary copywrite on a sequence of letters, put together as a single word, that are meant to represent a series of separate spoken words.
The song may receive a copyright, but the line you typed, even with the human creativity added, violates many of the minimal restrictions on what is copyrightable.
On the other hand, if the letters are spoken during the song, and there is punctuation involved, you could almost certainly get a copyright on "Bee oh cee, I bee oh cee..." as that is a literary work.
Does creation of anything "random" requires any human action? I say yes.
but, I think we beat this one to death :-D
The lawyers then argue the point for years...
Laws are there to be challenged.
Syzygy
