Google Groups unterstützt keine neuen Usenet-Beiträge oder ‑Abos mehr. Bisherige Inhalte sind weiterhin sichtbar.

copyright for sudokus ?

15 Aufrufe
Direkt zur ersten ungelesenen Nachricht

guenter

ungelesen,
13.09.2005, 05:32:2613.09.05
an

I'm curious whether you can successfully claim copyright
for a particular set of sudokus, like those which appear
in books or newspapers or webpages, where the authors
sometimes claim copyright for them.


I mean, they can be generated by public domain computer
programs, hundredth per second, so this hardly qualifies
as "creative work" which is required to claim copyright
AFAIK.


Sudokus are also just combinatorical entities like QWH-instances
(quasigroup with holes, sudokus without the blocks-constraint),
which I think can't be copyright. Or can they ?
Can you successfully claim copyright for latin squares,
permutations, numbers then ?


What's the smallest known copyrighted number ?
Is there a list, which numbers are copyrighted ?
Is there a list, which sudokus are copyrighted ?


When I grab sudokus from the web or from books and put them into
a public database, can that be illegal in some countries ?


-Guenter.

Bruce Lewis

ungelesen,
13.09.2005, 09:13:4913.09.05
an
"guenter" <ste...@aol.com> writes:

> I mean, they can be generated by public domain computer
> programs, hundredth per second, so this hardly qualifies
> as "creative work" which is required to claim copyright
> AFAIK.

[...]

> When I grab sudokus from the web or from books and put them into
> a public database, can that be illegal in some countries ?

Apparently these sudokus have some quality that makes you want to copy
them rather than just run a program to create lots of random sudokus.
This quality might make them creative works.

A nonsense poem could be generated by a computer program, but that
doesn't mean Jabberwocky is not copyrightable.

guenter

ungelesen,
14.09.2005, 01:59:2114.09.05
an

Bruce Lewis schrieb:

> "guenter" <ste...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > I mean, they can be generated by public domain computer
> > programs, hundredth per second, so this hardly qualifies
> > as "creative work" which is required to claim copyright
> > AFAIK.
>
> [...]
>
> > When I grab sudokus from the web or from books and put them into
> > a public database, can that be illegal in some countries ?
>
> Apparently these sudokus have some quality that makes you want to copy
> them rather than just run a program to create lots of random sudokus.
> This quality might make them creative works.

copyright laws don't mention any such dependency on "quality for the
user". Maybe I just want them for some satirics to make people
laugh about them ;-) . Or just some sort of statistics.

> A nonsense poem could be generated by a computer program, but that
> doesn't mean Jabberwocky is not copyrightable.

what's Jabberwocky ?

Suppose your computer puts words together
completely at random. Some million poems (e.g. "Haikus" =
short Japanese copyrightable poems), you put them on the
web and claim copyright. Someone copies some of them to his
page and denies the copyright and says they were public domain.
Can you get a court order to have them removed from the other page ?

Isaac

ungelesen,
23.09.2005, 06:02:2323.09.05
an
On 13 Sep 2005 22:59:21 -0700, guenter <ste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Bruce Lewis schrieb:
>
>> "guenter" <ste...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>> > I mean, they can be generated by public domain computer
>> > programs, hundredth per second, so this hardly qualifies
>> > as "creative work" which is required to claim copyright
>> > AFAIK.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > When I grab sudokus from the web or from books and put them into
>> > a public database, can that be illegal in some countries ?
>>
>> Apparently these sudokus have some quality that makes you want to copy
>> them rather than just run a program to create lots of random sudokus.
>> This quality might make them creative works.
>
> copyright laws don't mention any such dependency on "quality for the
> user". Maybe I just want them for some satirics to make people
> laugh about them ;-) . Or just some sort of statistics.

Interesting question.

I suspect least at some sodukus are creative works. The fact that
a computer might randomly spit out the same soduku is not dispositive. But
without a detailed look at the mathematics involved and the creative
process, I'm not sure that its easy to answer the question of whether the
particular ones you grabbed deserve protection.

I find it likely that in court a more simplistic analysis would be done and
that some courts might be inclined to avoid applying Feist in a way that
would deprive the sodukus author of their sweat eqwuity.

For that matter only some Haiku are protectable. Compounding the difficulty
in protecting a Haiku is that the Copyright Office is likely to challenge
the registration of very short works.

>> A nonsense poem could be generated by a computer program, but that
>> doesn't mean Jabberwocky is not copyrightable.
>
> what's Jabberwocky ?
>
> Suppose your computer puts words together
> completely at random. Some million poems (e.g. "Haikus" =
> short Japanese copyrightable poems), you put them on the
> web and claim copyright. Someone copies some of them to his
> page and denies the copyright and says they were public domain.
> Can you get a court order to have them removed from the other page ?

You might get the court order. If the "some" Haiku that you put up
were creatively selected from among the output of a deterministic
computer program which you youself wrote, IMO you'd deserver to get
the court order.

Isaac

guenter

ungelesen,
28.09.2005, 10:03:2328.09.05
an
>>>> When I grab sudokus from the web or from books and put them into
>>>> a public database, can that be illegal in some countries ?
>
>>> Apparently these sudokus have some quality that makes you want to
copy
>>> them rather than just run a program to create lots of random
sudokus.
>>> This quality might make them creative works.
>
>> copyright laws don't mention any such dependency on "quality for
the
>> user". Maybe I just want them for some satirics to make people
>> laugh about them ;-) . Or just some sort of statistics.
>
>
>Interesting question.
>
>I suspect least at some sodukus are creative works. The fact that

how are you going to prove it ?
There are other examples when something considered "creative work"
is just banal with todays computers. E.g. finding large primes
or magic squares.

>a computer might randomly spit out the same soduku is not
dispositive. But
>without a detailed look at the mathematics involved and the creative
>process, I'm not sure that its easy to answer the question of whether
the
>particular ones you grabbed deserve protection.

so, you think some deserve protection and some others don't.
And if they deserve protection it might depend on the
technics used to produce them.
And if someone else produced the same sudoku prior to you
but used a different method, that copyright might still be yours.

>I find it likely that in court a more simplistic analysis would be
done and
>that some courts might be inclined to avoid applying Feist in a way
that
>would deprive the sodukus author of their sweat eqwuity.

what's Feist ?

>For that matter only some Haiku are protectable. Compounding the
difficulty
>in protecting a Haiku is that the Copyright Office is likely to
challenge
>the registration of very short works.
>
>>> A nonsense poem could be generated by a computer program, but that

>>> doesn't mean Jabberwocky is not copyrightable.
>
>> what's Jabberwocky ?
>
>> Suppose your computer puts words together
>> completely at random. Some million poems (e.g. "Haikus" =
>> short Japanese copyrightable poems), you put them on the
>> web and claim copyright. Someone copies some of them to his
>> page and denies the copyright and says they were public domain.
>> Can you get a court order to have them removed from the other page
?
>
>
>You might get the court order. If the "some" Haiku that you put up
>were creatively selected from among the output of a deterministic
>computer program which you youself wrote, IMO you'd deserver to get
>the court order.

how can it matter, who wrote that program ?
We're not disputing the copyright for the program but for its output.

Which countries legislation are you referrint to BTW. ?


>Isaac

Guenter

Isaac

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 06:20:3929.09.05
an
On 28 Sep 2005 07:03:23 -0700, guenter <ste...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> When I grab sudokus from the web or from books and put them into
> >>>> a public database, can that be illegal in some countries ?
> >
> >>> Apparently these sudokus have some quality that makes you want to
> copy
> >>> them rather than just run a program to create lots of random
> sudokus.
> >>> This quality might make them creative works.
> >
> >> copyright laws don't mention any such dependency on "quality for
> the
> >> user". Maybe I just want them for some satirics to make people
> >> laugh about them ;-) . Or just some sort of statistics.
> >
> >
> >Interesting question.
> >
> >I suspect least at some sodukus are creative works. The fact that
>
> how are you going to prove it ?
> There are other examples when something considered "creative work"
> is just banal with todays computers. E.g. finding large primes
> or magic squares.

The fact that a computer is used is not dispositive IMO. You can
make a creative work using AutoCad.

> >a computer might randomly spit out the same soduku is not
> dispositive. But
> >without a detailed look at the mathematics involved and the creative
> >process, I'm not sure that its easy to answer the question of whether
> the
> >particular ones you grabbed deserve protection.
>
> so, you think some deserve protection and some others don't.
> And if they deserve protection it might depend on the
> technics used to produce them.
> And if someone else produced the same sudoku prior to you
> but used a different method, that copyright might still be yours.

Someone else's independent creation has no effect on my copyright and
is unaffected by my copyright. I cannot prevent someone who independently
duplicates my work without copying from distributing his creation.

>
> >I find it likely that in court a more simplistic analysis would be
> done and
> >that some courts might be inclined to avoid applying Feist in a way
> that
> >would deprive the sodukus author of their sweat eqwuity.
>
> what's Feist ?

One of the parties in a Supreme Court decision that says that copyright
requires at least a modicum of creativity and does not protect mere
sweat of the brow.

> >You might get the court order. If the "some" Haiku that you put up
> >were creatively selected from among the output of a deterministic
> >computer program which you youself wrote, IMO you'd deserver to get
> >the court order.
>
> how can it matter, who wrote that program ?
> We're not disputing the copyright for the program but for its output.

The program my be selectively creating Haiku. If you wrote the program,
then its output may be copyrightable by you but not by others. Thus there
are two places in my hypo for your creativity to be evident.

But maybe only one is needed, and in that case it would not matter who wrote
the program.

> Which countries legislation are you referrint to BTW. ?

Sigh. Was a particular country mentioned? The analysis is US specific, but
I think the result would also be reached under UK law. Maybe not elsewhere.

Also other places may have other types of protection that may be relevant
such as protection for data in a database.

Isaac

Roger Schlafly

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 12:01:1129.09.05
an
"Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>> There are other examples when something considered "creative work"
>> is just banal with todays computers. E.g. finding large primes
>> or magic squares.
> The fact that a computer is used is not dispositive IMO. You can
> make a creative work using AutoCad.

Yes, but the sudokus are completely computer generated. They
have no distinguishing aesthetic or utilitarian qualities that are
meaningful to the user. The only noticeable difference is that some
have ratings like "easy" and "hard". But even these ratings are
computer generated.

I think that one reason these puzzles have caught on so quickly
is that there are no copyright, trademark, or other legal obstacles.


Bruce Lewis

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 12:43:0229.09.05
an
"Roger Schlafly" <roge...@mindspring.com> writes:

> Yes, but the sudokus are completely computer generated. They
> have no distinguishing aesthetic or utilitarian qualities that are
> meaningful to the user.

Some claim that isn't true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku#Construction

The Guardian famously claimed that because they were
hand-constructed, their puzzles would contain "imperceptible
witticisms" that would be very unlikely in computer-generated sudoku.

I don't know whether this is true, but the fact that the original poster
wants to copy sudokus off of a web site rather than computer-generate
his own implies some desirable quality he couldn't achieve himself.
I wouldn't rule out for sure that such a quality would be creative work.

> I think that one reason these puzzles have caught on so quickly
> is that there are no copyright, trademark, or other legal obstacles.

There may not be any apparent obstacles. But keep in mind that despite
what U.S. statute and all Supreme Court precedent says, mathematics is
patentable when done in a computer.

guenter

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 14:12:3329.09.05
an

>The fact that a computer is used is not dispositive IMO. You can
>make a creative work using AutoCad.

I don't know about AutoCad. But when you have a public-domain-program,
which prints random sudokus when you just hit "enter" , then I
can't see any creativity here.


...

>> so, you think some deserve protection and some others don't.
>> And if they deserve protection it might depend on the
>> technics used to produce them.
>> And if someone else produced the same sudoku prior to you
>> but used a different method, that copyright might still be yours.
>
>
>Someone else's independent creation has no effect on my copyright and
>is unaffected by my copyright. I cannot prevent someone who independently
>duplicates my work without copying from distributing his creation.

Seems you are right, as I had read in the article below.
I had thought that you couldn't claim successfully copyright on
something
that was already copyright by someone else before you.
But it seems that you can. But I think you would have to prove that
you found it independently.

>> what's Feist ?
>
>One of the parties in a Supreme Court decision that says that copyright
>requires at least a modicum of creativity and does not protect mere

>sweat of the brow. [Augenbraue]

OK. Thanks. I found it here:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html


I have no idea how to translate "sweat of the brow", though.
It's Feist publications vs. Rural telephone services,Kansas 1991 ,
ruling that telephone-users-listings are not copyrightable
because they lack originality and creativity.
I read the whole 50K article ! And it's clear that a random
collection of sudokus can't be copyrightable as a collection
if the used sudokus themselves aren't.

But IMO a computer generated randomized sudoku is a "fact"
and cannot be copyrighted. Just like a random number, generated
by some pseudo-random-generator program.

The sudoku did exist before it was discovered and would have
existed without the publication.
OK, I'm aware that this might apply also to arrangements of letters
or music-notes or pixels in images - although to a much smaller
extend. But I was just quoting from the court's reasoning above.

So, the person who types in the Sonday's sudoku from the Times
and copies it on his webpage should not be subject to
copyright enfringement. (The "author" of the Times-sudokus,
a retired judge from New-Zealand already confirmed that the
puzzles were generated at random by computer, but claims
copyright nevertheless)

This is from my interpretation of US-law , assuming that the same
applies to UK and/or New-Zealand.

>> how can it matter, who wrote that program ?
>> We're not disputing the copyright for the program but for its output.
>
>The program my be selectively creating Haiku. If you wrote the program,
>then its output may be copyrightable by you but not by others.

this doesn't make sense to me. Nor did I find anything like this
in the laws.
The writing of the program and the using of it for printing something
are two different things.
How can the exactly same thing (hitting the enter-key) change its
character of creativity only because it's done by another person ?

Not the author of the editor-program co-owns copyright for your thesis
which you edited with it. Nor does Microsoft own copyright on the
jokes being sold about the silly error-messages in Windows.

You cannot delegate your originality and creativity to your computer
program which then later produces some output with or without the
help of humans or other programs. That output can't be your copyright
then. The author of the program was not involved, in the program's
output,only in his creation.
He might even have died in the meantime. You would have to accept
that a computer program can do creative work by itself which is
then magically transferred back to the author of the program.

>Thus there are two places in my hypo for your creativity to be evident.
>
>But maybe only one is needed, and in that case it would not matter who wrote
>the program.
>
>> Which countries legislation are you referrint to BTW. ?
>
>
>Sigh. Was a particular country mentioned? The analysis is US specific, but
>I think the result would also be reached under UK law. Maybe not elsewhere.

no country was specified, just useful to know what you are referring
to.

>Also other places may have other types of protection that may be relevant
>such as protection for data in a database.
>
>Isaac


do you agree that there is no principal difference in getting copyright
for
a randomly generated sudoku or in getting copyright for a randomly
generated number - however big it may be and whoever the author of
that generating program is ? (as long as it's not yourself at least)


-Guenter.

guenter

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 14:25:1129.09.05
an
yes, I know about the Guardian claim and also Nikoli, who owns
trademark
for sudoku in Japan. They also claim that handmade sudokus are so
much better. I can't see much point in those claims. I suspect
they were just made up because of copyright reasons.
However others create them by computer but still claim copyright.

The reason why someone wants to copy these puzzles to a webpage is
irrelevant
for copyright considerations. And so is their worth. That's at least
what
the Feist-judge said above.

It could just be for statistical reasons or because the Times is
wellknown.
Certainly not because of the "quality" of their puzzles.

I don't think "mathematics" is patentable. Implementations of
math-algorithms
or collections of math-papers might be. Math-theorems or proofs aren't.
Special samples, entities, examples, instances, numbers with certain
properties
probably aren't. I've never sawn any.
Always wondering what the smallest copyrighted number is, but noone
seems to know.

Bruce Lewis

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 16:10:4029.09.05
an
"guenter" <ste...@aol.com> writes:

> It could just be for statistical reasons or because the Times is
> wellknown. Certainly not because of the "quality" of their puzzles.

If you're right on this point then I agree that the particular sudoku is
not copyrightable. If you're wrong and someone put creative effort into
a desirable quality of the sudoku, then I would say it's copyrightable.

> I don't think "mathematics" is patentable. Implementations of
> math-algorithms or collections of math-papers might be.

As I said, mathematics is patentable when done in a computer. When a
computer implements a mathematical algorithm, simply claim in as general
language as possible the computer apparatus needed, together with the
algorithm. Voila! People can still implement some algorithms with
pencil and paper, but for other alorithms you've precluded any possible
implementation.

This is only in the U.S. as far as I know.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA#History_of_RSA

Roger Schlafly

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 18:13:2829.09.05
an
"Bruce Lewis" <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> Yes, but the sudokus are completely computer generated. They
>> have no distinguishing aesthetic or utilitarian qualities that are
>> meaningful to the user.
> Some claim that isn't true:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku#Construction
> The Guardian famously claimed that because they were
> hand-constructed, their puzzles would contain "imperceptible
> witticisms" that would be very unlikely in computer-generated sudoku.

The argument is laughable.

> I don't know whether this is true, but the fact that the original poster
> wants to copy sudokus off of a web site rather than computer-generate
> his own implies some desirable quality he couldn't achieve himself.
> I wouldn't rule out for sure that such a quality would be creative work.

I am sure he is not looking for imperceptible witticisms.


Isaac

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 21:10:3829.09.05
an
On 29 Sep 2005 12:43:02 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Roger Schlafly" <roge...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>> Yes, but the sudokus are completely computer generated. They
>> have no distinguishing aesthetic or utilitarian qualities that are
>> meaningful to the user.
>
> Some claim that isn't true:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku#Construction
>
> The Guardian famously claimed that because they were
> hand-constructed, their puzzles would contain "imperceptible
> witticisms" that would be very unlikely in computer-generated sudoku.
>
> I don't know whether this is true, but the fact that the original poster
> wants to copy sudokus off of a web site rather than computer-generate
> his own implies some desirable quality he couldn't achieve himself.
> I wouldn't rule out for sure that such a quality would be creative work.

I think the implication is fairly weak. The desirable quality might be
that the ones on the web site don't require him to install software on
his computer or even that the available software is incompatible with
his computer.

Isaac

Isaac

ungelesen,
29.09.2005, 23:25:5929.09.05
an
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:01:11 -0700, Roger Schlafly <roge...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> "Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>>> There are other examples when something considered "creative work"
>>> is just banal with todays computers. E.g. finding large primes
>>> or magic squares.
>> The fact that a computer is used is not dispositive IMO. You can
>> make a creative work using AutoCad.
>
> Yes, but the sudokus are completely computer generated. They
> have no distinguishing aesthetic or utilitarian qualities that are
> meaningful to the user. The only noticeable difference is that some
> have ratings like "easy" and "hard". But even these ratings are
> computer generated.

Which particular sudokus are you talking about? I thought that there
was an open question whether the sudokus in question had any aesthetic
qualities. Are you saying that no sukoku could ever have aesthetic
qualities?

Isaac

Roger Schlafly

ungelesen,
30.09.2005, 00:51:5130.09.05
an
"Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
> Which particular sudokus are you talking about? I thought that there
> was an open question whether the sudokus in question had any aesthetic
> qualities. Are you saying that no sukoku could ever have aesthetic
> qualities?

I have a book full of sodokus and I see them in the newspaper.
What aesthetics would they have? They are just 9x9 grids with
digits having certain properties. Do some people think that
198365247 is more beautiful than 862793541? If so, it is lost
on me. Do the more aesthetic sudokus command a higher price
in the market? I really doubt it.

The Rand Corporation once just generated a bunch of random
numbers, and published them in a book.
http://www.rand.org/publications/classics/randomdigits/

Do you think that was copyrightable? (Just the numbers. I assume
that the brief introduction might have been copyrighted.)

Isaac

ungelesen,
01.10.2005, 00:17:3801.10.05
an
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:51:51 -0700, Roger Schlafly <roge...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> "Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>> Which particular sudokus are you talking about? I thought that there
>> was an open question whether the sudokus in question had any aesthetic
>> qualities. Are you saying that no sukoku could ever have aesthetic
>> qualities?
>
> I have a book full of sodokus and I see them in the newspaper.
> What aesthetics would they have? They are just 9x9 grids with

Perhaps those particular ones have no aesthetic properties.

> digits having certain properties. Do some people think that
> 198365247 is more beautiful than 862793541? If so, it is lost
> on me. Do the more aesthetic sudokus command a higher price
> in the market? I really doubt it.

Whether or not anyone wants to buy more aesthetic sudokus is irrelevant.
Whether or not you personally appreciate a sequence of numbers is
relevant, but really does not answer the question of whether a series
of numbers might have aesthetic properties.

> The Rand Corporation once just generated a bunch of random
> numbers, and published them in a book.
> http://www.rand.org/publications/classics/randomdigits/
>
> Do you think that was copyrightable? (Just the numbers. I assume
> that the brief introduction might have been copyrighted.)

No I don't. I don't think your response addresses my question.

Not that my question is of any earth shattering importance.

Isaac

0 neue Nachrichten