Re: Copyright laws

From: Steve Reeves (
Date: 10/18/96

> Just note, this 100% concept implies both 'look' and 'concept', that is,
> you could change 100% of the text and still be violating copyrights by
> using the same 'concept', it is easier to see the exmaple of a picture or
> a photo. You could see a great concepto on a photo, and instead of
> photocopying the thing you go and make a photo with exactly the same
> parts, it would look very much the same, but to be literal, it would not
> be the same at all, it would also be 100% different (because none of the
> parts of the original were taken), this is not considered fair use because
> you are still stealing the concept.
  As another note [watch out.. I'm pretty sure I only think I know what
I'm talking about :> ] while it's possible to copyright words, it isn't
possible to copyright an idea.  Only the words that express that idea.
[I think someone on this list might've said this already, tho.  Not sure.]
Of course, this arugment has gone off in another direction entirely and is
no longer about what it originally was.  :>  We somehow went from the
ability to copyright an area to copyright laws in general (where I 
managed to prove that I don't know as much as I thought I did, and ended 
up looking rather stupid) to photography.  Strange.  :>


| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
|   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST