http://yro-beta.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/2055221/how-wolf...
The program itself is almost certainly copyrightable, but what about its output?
These mazes feel like a similar idea to me - he even mentioned that this particular one is generated by a "fibonacci spiral", so there is likely a compact mathematical description of its vertices, and a PRNG (further thought experiment: what if the "randomness" was generated by a true RNG?) along with its seed that was used to determine where the lines appeared. It's an artistic work, but the majority of the "work" was done by an algorithm - he didn't manually draw all the lines.
"original" boils down to "more creative than alphabetical ordering", and "tangible media" includes pictorial/graphic displays.
So yes, the maze is likely subject to copyright.
However, there's very little "creative expression" in the individual maze, as an algorithmic result, the creative expression is in the inputs, resulting in a "thin" copyright - only applying to virtually identical copies.
In the specific case, Kraft's maze is a significantly better maze - also evidence of the lack of individual creative analysis in the original.
There's definite copying - the styling and layout are too close for there to be otherwise, but the creative expression in the original is so minimal that it likely balances the fair use criteria (nature of the work, effect on the negligible original market suggest it is fair use, commercial use counts against fair use.)
Not sure which way a judge would rule. Kraft is probably very unhappy with their illustrator for not just creating an original maze...
However, if the maze is entirely the product of a random process then the online compilation could be protected as a 'selective' creative work, but individual mazes would not.
Note that even if each individual maze is eligible for protection that the author doesn't end up with copyright over Fibonacci mazes, it's only the creative parts, whatever aesthetic tweaks (or manual selection in the case of a compilation) were made that is covered. So you could produce a very similar maze with your own program using your own creative decisions without infringing.
That is not the law. The actual work must demonstrate creativity, and a mechanically generated works of this sort do not.
"The U.S. Copyright Office has taken the position that "in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable."
503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.
even if there was no creativity involved and thus the copyright would fail, it seems (IANAL) that it might put the melodies into the public domain, since how could somebody claim you had no right to use a melody that you had already published?
If I write a website and put thousands of mazes up, what difference does it make if I created them with a tool I wrote? Does the number of mazes created make a difference? Why?
I can copyright a computer program that is the binary output of a compiler...
I understand that in some jurisdictions reproducing a small portion of a larger work, then it may constitute fair use. Bullet point 3:
The amount and substantiality of the portion
used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Of course, this is but one bullet point out of four, and the law is fuzzy, as it should be.
No, I don't believe so:
"The U.S. Copyright Office has taken the position that "in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable."
Kraft clearly nicked it, or where careless as to wither it was copyrighted, but we have now wondered into output of program territory instead of the much clearer area of did kraft just grab the first thing that they could find?
You won't succeed in suing them - so this is probably the best option he has.
> "So often we read of very large companies riding rough-shod over small businesses or individuals," said David Bradley, director of Pentaplex. "But when it comes to the population of Great Britain being invited by a multi-national to wipe their bottoms on what appears to be the work of a Knight of the Realm without his permission, then a last stand must be made."
http://krazydad.com/slitherlink/sfiles/sl_penrose_b001.pdf
Years ago, I sought (and received) permission from Penrose to use his tiling on these puzzles.
That's certainly got to be interesting/validating for the op though (albeit simultaneously violating/annoying).
Definitely curious to hear how Kraft responds; if op is willing to share even more about something he shouldn't have had to deal with in the first place that is.
Working for a media related company or similar he will have been told not to do that sort of thing, officially at least (it'll be in the company handbook which he'll have signed a document stating he has read and understood) - so yes if he is still there he'll get some of the fallout.
The company should have checks and balances on such things though, so they can't blame a sole individual and wash their hands of it without recall of the item and/or recompense to the creator they've copied.
No consumer packaged goods company, least of all a giant like Kraft, puts anything onto a box without many layers of approval and rounds of creative review. In this case, the buck presumably stops with the brand manager for the Mac & Cheese product. I doubt he or she would have even thought to ask about the IP origins of the maze when conducting creative review. Nevertheless, he or she bears some responsibility as the owner of the review process.
Most likely this maze was lifted and passed off as original by someone a bit lower down the food chain: an agency staffer, a freelance designer, or an artist at the company. But there is virtually no scenario in which that person's contribution wasn't reviewed a half-dozen times by people with managerial authority. At CPG companies, the package is an incredibly important and borderline sacred thing. Nothing gets onto the package by accident, and as such, it would be incredibly difficult for Kraft to argue its way out of responsibility.
Another possibility is that Nickelodeon (the owner of Spongebob) provided the artwork, including the maze, to Kraft. This makes identifying the proximately responsible party a bit trickier, but Kraft still bears a burden. It would also mean that two companies, and possibly two brand managers, had eyes on this.
As a graphics designer you should have a basic grasp of these manners, and respect them.
Obviously, this is very out-of-left-field and I don't believe it either, but it's not impossible that Kraft didn't plagiarise anything.
Then there is the choice of grid design (identical), entry and exit holes (identical).
OTOH one could argue that the maze itself does not fall under the scope of the Urheberrechtsgesetz because its threshold of originality is too low (no offense, it is after all auto-generated). But I'm no lawyer and this is just a spooky idea.
With regard to your question, it depends on whether it passes the Threshold of Originality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
Not exactly intuitive, I'd agree; see e.g. this: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
(Oh, and it's "copyright")
Besides, this usage of "theft" is not dissimilar from the already well established usage of "stole" as in "he stole my idea." If an idea can be stolen, it can certainly be theft to take the product of an idea, at least colloquially.
I think we should all be grownup enough to recognise that ideas can't really be stolen either. We also recognise the value of copying ideas. If we recognise these things, then we should use corresponding language to reflect our intent.
Now I hope that Craft is classy in return, by contacting him and negotiating in good faith a reasonable fee for the use of the maze.
It was 1 designer tasked with putting a maze on it that did a google image search and came up with that result.
That by no means exonerates Kraft, but it can be helpful to put things in perspective sometimes. I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, that if someone in a position to actually do something about it was made aware that they had mass produced copyrighted materials, they would be willing to offer a reasonable fee. However actually getting in touch with that person may be challenging without legal action.
I have conversations with (often the same) marketeers that they need to purchase the $9-99 font they've used in their design on almost every project. They send me copy often verbatim copied from the website they are "taking inspiration from". There is unsurprisingly little integrity in the industry. Bigger firms is sometimes slightly better since they have lawyers cracking down on this kind of behavior.
Source: I work for a software consultancy that primarily work with marketing firms.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:krazyd...
Does this necessarily exclude a for-profit use, or does that have to be explicitly declared? IANAL, so I'd like to know.
Coupled with the fact that you automatically have copyright on copyrightable works, and that by default you need license to copy copyrighted works outside fair use and similar exceptions, I think it's clear that if these mazes are copyrightable and if the maze wasn't independently generated (both of which seem more probable than not), then Kraft owes him some money here.
Additionally, you don't have to provide a copyright notice or any licensing terms for your copyright to be valid an enforceable (with some very special exceptions blah blah).
http://krazydad.com/blog/2014/07/18/about-that-mac-cheese-ma...
I doubt he has the resources to fight it if they choose to fight. He would basically be hoping they would give him a settlement just to make him go away.
Filing a lawsuit just to get a settlement when you can't actually fight on the merits is not considered positive behavior (although it can be lucrative).
If you can't actually fight it on its merits because the facts and law don't back you up, I whole heartedly agree. If you can't actually fight it on its merits only because you don't have the resources to do so, it's more questionable.
And now the next maze to be copied by someone will be that one, and they'll argue that this statement is permission!