Copyrights facts

[a_bertrand]

PHP Codes can be copyrighted, and are automatically so as any other creations. HTML is a bit more difficult as anybody can copy it from anywhere without any effort and you will need to redo the same things as others to get similar (or different) results. Like what if I try to copyright the tag ? (Beside of course it's too short for a real copyright case)

 

I strongly suggest to read this:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

or

http://evolt.org/node/15208

 

So, any real work you do, is by default copyrighted to you (with or without the small © and date sign). Now while suing somebody you may need to demonstrate that you was the first author of this creation, and that can be a bit more tricky. Beside that, yes you are the owner of your own creations (unless you work for somebody at the time you create it) and you get therefore the copyrights about it.

 

Then the statement that changing a simple word in the code changes the code and makes it a new code: wrong, as then you could do the same on a book, isn't it? Well sorry (or actually not sorry at all), it doesn't work like that.

 

Also stating that in the US there is no law actions for copyright infringement over code is also wrong. Don't you guys remember that Linux got serious troubles over the code it was containing and has been sued by a pretending copyright holder? Well those are serious matter also in the US.

[Croesy]

Just to confirm a_bertrand is correct...in pretty much everything he says. You do not need papers to have copyright it exists when the conditions for existence are met. You do not need to register it/you do not need to place a © sign or any of those other things. Just to point you in the correct direction for the two examples given above (UK and US and I include internationally as well). With threads like this lingering, and a lot of misinformation hanging about, it is certainly time for a sticky "All you need to know about copyright but were afraid to ask" thread (which should be routinely cleared of false information).

UK:

The CDPA 1988 s.1 and 3(1) make it clear that computer code is covered (as a literary work) by copyright.

Cantor [2000] RPC 95 is a recent(ish) case illustrating application of copyright to code. Demonstrates that the code itself and the programming architecture is capable of protection.

Hawkes and Sons [1934] 1 Ch 593 copyright infringement happens where a substantial and/or essential part of the work is taken.

USA (though not my jurisdiction):

Title 17 of USC c.101 (definitions which INCLUDE computer software/code) and c.102 which talks of general application. So, provided the conditions for copyright are made out, such code/software is capable of protection.

This was recognised BEFORE the legislation was updated to reflect this in Apple v Franklin 714 F.2d 1240.

Copyright law also protects websites, both on the individual elements (graphics, musical works, text, HTML, software etc) AND the overall selection and placement of those elements.

On the HTML point, cannot be copyrighted (aside from being too short) the same as a "standard" table format cannot give rise to a copyright. This is not something "novel" to HTML/code. This is something all works (particularly literary) share in common. In US you need fixation, originality and a level of creativity in order to be protected. The "standard" things lack the last two criteria. However, if your HTML is original and demonstrates a minimal level of creativity then it can qualify for copyright protection.

all you would have to do would be change one simple word in the code and the copyright would be out the window, and in a code that would be easy,,,.

This is just plain incorrect for both computer programs and works of copyright more generally. Altali 982 F.2d 693 case makes it clear if a work is "substantially similar" then there is an infringement.

 

There is a huge Novell case going through US courts at the moment about the alleged "misappropriation" of some source code, which means it is, as bertrand suggests, a huge deal in the US.

 

International:

World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty Article 4 includes computer programs/code within the copyright protection scheme established by Berne Convention (of which US and UK [and most others] are signatories)

 

 

*This is NOT to say that FUNCTIONALITY is protected. This means if I see a computer program which achieves X, copyright only protects the particular expression of that idea. This means I may try to achieve the same purpose/idea, provided I do not copy the code.*

LMAO thanks Spirit38 I thought I was going to have to put a big post on here with the copyrights rules and regs.

I would like to see how you come to the contrary conclusion to the above. Unless I am missing something fundamental, I don't think you are correct.

 

I have a degree in Law so don't try and tell me to look some thing up,

That is no way to win an argument. Everyone knows if you get 3 lawyers together and ask them something, you get 3 (or more answers) ;) . As it happens, I also have a law degree (and a masters degree with 25% of study of intellectual property law) and disagree with what you say (quite fundamentally). So, if you could look things up to form a rebuttal, that would be great. :thumbup:

 

Your crapy english copyright does not have any hold in the USA. See here in the USA you have to have papers saying that your art is copy righted

Simply not true. USA is signatory to the Berne convention which states that NO formalities are required. Also, both following Berne and being common law countries protection of copyright in US and UK are very similar.

 

As for those who are copying others codes, theyre really isnt alot anyone can do to prevent them from NOT doing so.

If the stakes are high, you can simply be sued or have some form of interlocutory relief (like an injunction). Just because the vast majority of authors do not pursue infringement, does not mean some will not.

[JohnKicksAss]

thanks

Wow, thanks guys I really wanted to know about this for my new engine

[Croesy]

Thanks Kaboom. My post was a reply to some odd information circulating in another thread. I seem to vaguely remember md talking about getting his lawyer friend to write some sort-of copyright help. That would certainly be useful (and him being in the US would certainly make him more qualified to comment than me, given the preponderance of US users)! If it isn't forthcoming, and I get a spare hour, I may write something up that is a bit more comprehensive/structured (although any simplification is bound to lose a bit of accuracy): sort-of a copyright basics/FAQ. I will see how my time goes...

Anyhow, it is good to see it was useful even to someone who wasn't part of the original discussion. Copyright (and intellectual property more generally) can certainly be of interest to game owners/developers, even if is rather a "complex" and incoherent given the international dimensions of the internet.

[reek13]

thanks for the info

[Arslan230]

Copy right is understand as a fake deal.

[Zettieee]

Stop reviving old ****.. x,x