> 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. :> Steve +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: | | http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST