[Discuss] Request for Comments: Digital DIY: Legal Challenges & Solutions Practised Report
patola at gmail.com
Sat Sep 24 14:45:04 UTC 2016
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Wouter,
> Are you really sure that the decorative aspects of OSHW designs are enough
> to extend copyright protection to the whole object?
> I'm not at all confident that's possible (or desirable).
> Here's an example:
> "*a painting on the side of a truck is protectable under copyright law
> even though the truck is a useful article. The painting is clearly
> separable from the utilitarian aspects of the truck. The overall shape of
> the truck, on the other hand, would not be copyrightable since the shape is
> an essential part of the truck's utility...One of the primary purposes for
> prohibiting copyright protection in useful articles is to prevent the
> granting of patent-like protection through the copyright laws*"
Someone please explain to me:
With all these restrictions about copyright being applied to artistic but
not utilitarian aspects of the creation, how is it that it fully applies to
computer software, which is often a fully functional creation?
I have read the article on wikipedia but could not really understand it:
Cláudio "Patola" Sampaio
MakerLinux Labs - Campinas, SP
Gmail <patola at gmail.com> - Mail EAD <patola at techtraining.eng.br> -
MakerLinux <patola at makerlinux.com.br> - YOUTUBE
Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/patolinux> - Facebook da MakerLinux
<https://www.facebook.com/makerlinux> - Lattes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss