Timeline for Can cropping a sprite invalidate copyright?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 13:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://law.stackexchange.com/ with https://law.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 7, 2017 at 17:45 | comment | added | user6726 | Insofar as "baroque" refers to a style and not a historical era, there can be new baroque compositions which are not in the public domain, just as there can be new classical and hot jazz compositions. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 17:09 | comment | added | phoog | All baroque music compositions are in the public domain. Derived works, such as recorded performances, new editions, and arrangements are another matter, of course. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 22:42 | comment | added | John Hoffer | Yeah. I've raised a new question asking for clarity on your last sentence with regard to admission of copying. In an answer to another post, @K-C has outilned several court cases involving this subject. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 22:03 | comment | added | user6726 | I think there is a fine line of interpretation here. I am saying that the law does not take creating a derivative work with insufficient similarity to be permitted per se. I guess I don't what case law indicates that one can copy and admit to copying, and be excuses because the derivative was changed "a lot". | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 21:45 | comment | added | John Hoffer | It the answer of user6726 may go against what @K-C said in a comment here that Substantial similarity analysis also enters even after an admission of copying in order to determine whether the new work copied the "heart" of the original — whether the new work has copied enough (or the right portions) to actually be an infringement This quote from K-C is substantiated further here | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 21:44 | comment | added | John Hoffer | You say: If you take an original Mario and modify it hugely, that is a violation of copyright I rephrased that as: Any cropping and/or derivation (no matter how major the change) is by default a violation of copyright. In a comment on the original question, @K-C said the latter statement is false. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 20:05 | vote | accept | John Hoffer | ||
| Mar 6, 2017 at 17:30 | comment | added | markspace | Not a lawyer, but: in some cases you can copy by hand and it's not infringing. Anything you made yourself isn't a copy. However, Mario is also a trademark, and anything you make that looks Mario-ish is possible to infringe on Nintendo's mark (though not perhaps copyright). NOLO Books has books on both copyright and trademarks, they're worth a read through for the layman. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 17:12 | comment | added | John Hoffer | Thank you both and @K-C. This does clear quite a bit up! I'll edit my post accordingly, and I'll likely accept this as an answer. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 17:04 | comment | added | K-C | And, this analysis is part of the core infringement analysis, not part of a fair use defense. I described how this applies to physical sculptures and toys in this answer: law.stackexchange.com/a/15901/10024 | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 17:04 | vote | accept | John Hoffer | ||
| Mar 6, 2017 at 17:04 | |||||
| Mar 6, 2017 at 16:59 | history | edited | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 255 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2017 at 16:51 | comment | added | K-C | I.e. this little glyph (•--_--•), even though I got to it by copying the Mario sprite and then editing it a bunch, isn't a copyright infringement of the Mario sprite. That is true even given my admission of copying and then editing. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 16:49 | comment | added | K-C | Substantial similarity analysis also enters even after an admission of copying in order to determine whether the new work copied the "heart" of the original — whether the new work has copied enough (or the right portions) to actually be an infringement. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 16:31 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |