From: *@eli.users.panix.com   
      
   In alt.anagrams, Jud Pewther   wrote:   
   > By the way, what do you people at alt.anagrams think of the claim that   
   > an anagrammer has a copyright on each of his/her anagrams discoveries?   
   > And to what extent are other people allowed to quote them, or claim   
   > them as their own, without permission from the author?   
      
   Any creative work becomes copyrighted automatically when it becomes   
   "fixed" (eg sent in the case of tweets, usenet posts, or email). That   
   said, particularly for short strings, multiple people can easily   
   independently arrive it. You need only modest practice at Scrabble,   
   say, before   
      
     T. S. Eliot ~ Toilets   
      
   becomes fairly obvious. I think it is right and proper to credit people   
   for anagrams that you, yourself, would not find obvious or trivial. I   
   don't think you need worry about compensation or permission for such   
   unless your use is generating you money.   
      
   And lastly, what is "creative work" if a computer generated it? I didn't   
   look at the follow-up tweets you mentioned, but the nonsensical response   
   description made me think of anagram generation tools. If you generate a   
   large number and post them all, that's not create. Arbitrarily pick a few,   
   that's still not creative. Carefully select the "best"? That rises to   
   creative.   
      
   So anagramtron doesn't have creative output.   
      
   https://twitter.com/anagramatron   
      
   All it does it programattically identify two tweets that are anagrams of   
   each other and then retweet them. But a collection of the "best of   
   anagramatron" would be a creative work.   
      
   Elijah   
   ------   
   wanted to remind people about anagramatron even it it has stopped updating   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)