From: dfreemans@live.com
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 2:15:11 PM UTC-4, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> 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
Thank you very much for your reply,
AND for posting vertically.
It is actually more simple than that:
ANY ORIGINAL WRITING,
ONCE PUBLISHED,
IS COPYRIGHTED -
EVEN POSTINGS ON USENET.
IT IS IN THE USENET POLICY
AND RULES.
AND THIS IS WHY THE USENET
PROGRAM IS SET UP TO AUTOMATICALLY
DUPLICATE THE POST YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO
SO THAT THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
ON THE PART OF USENET.
THEIR POLICY EVEN SAYS THAT
ONE MAY OTHERWISE DUPLICATE AN
ENTIRE POST OR PORTIONS OF IT
IF WITH CONSENT OF AUTHOR FIRST.
See, if you duplicate only a
portion, you can totally change
a meaning by pulling it out of context.
In actual legal fact,
no one on Usenet should
ever fiddle with what duplicate
the program puts up other than
adding comment between lines
where desired to do so,
and DEFINITELY obtain consent
from author if wanting to transport
whole or part of their post to
some other thread or site etc.
And as far as Anagrams, it is only a sin or crime
if one does so consciously, knowingly,
duplicating an Anagram and not getting
permission first.
It looks to me that someone should just use their
common sense and The Golden Rule and come to the
right conclusion:
Ergo, if you want or prefer for someone
to find out first from you if you care or
not, then do the same for others.
How is it that someone wants or needs to
make something so simple so complicated?
DON'T MESS WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S WRITINGS.
AND IF YOU WANT TO DO SO, ONLY DO SO
WITH THEIR PERMISSION FIRST !!!!
P.S. Leeway is only for a small portion of
a large work, like a paragraph or two of
a book. But if the original work was small,
like an Anagram, then permission should be
gotten first. COMMON SENSE !!!! GOLDEN RULE !!!!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
