> They have effectively created an entirely new document espousing all of the same ideas as yours,
IMO, that describes the situation well
> and on which you would not have any copyright claims.
That is also my understanding, unless I could somehow prove that they violated my copyright in the construction of this work. For instance, if one could prove that my copyrighted content was fed into a spinning algorithm to generate this new document, I think you could argue that it is in fact a derivative work.
But it's kind of an academic question anyway, as it would be very difficult to prove that in the first place, and likely not worth the time and trouble if you did. It may even require new legal precedent to win that sort of case, but I'm not that familiar with the entire scope of copyright law.
Just as an intellectual exercise, suppose I fed one of the Harry Potter books into a spinning algorithm to come up with a book about Larry Kotter, a pupil at the Cowpimple Academy of Sorcery. If my new book is just substituting synonymous terms in the original work, I'm pretty sure I'd lose a copyright claim. But how different would it need to be to become legal? To become undetectable? Suppose I was synthesizing multiple works for my spun article? How sophisticated would my spinning algorithm need to be before it really was creating new works?
First, you need to stop thinking in terms of 'algorithms' and 'spinning'. It's irrelevant and confuses the discussion. I understand how tempting it is to frame new concepts (law) in terms of things you understand (computers) but it's very dangerous territory. It's also (this is not to bash you personally, just a general remark) why 95% of legal chatter amongst technical people on the internet is meaningless to lawyers ('meaningless' as in 'jibberish', 'flux capacitor'-style nonsense) - because the fundamental assumptions and reasoning methods are so vastly different that it's almost impossible to reconcile the two in the limited (in terms of expressiveness) environment of forum posts. FWIW I've been a programmer for over 10 years and hope to finish my law degree in a few months, so I have some inside experience on the two worlds, and in how the two interact (or rather, seem not to be able to interact).
Furthermore the question whether something is derivative does not depend on the form of representation, or the amount of similarity (on the textual level) between two works. If I write a theater play based on a book, I may not use a single sentence from the book; it's still a derivative work.
'Derivative' is casuistic. It's meaningless to argue about 'levels of similarity', in a legal context. The question is whether the second author based himself on the artistic values that the original author put in the work. The originality of a work is not necessarily in the wording, it's in the creative effort that went into the work. So if someone blends two works into one (without permission), he's violating 2 author's copyrights.
> It's meaningless to argue about 'levels of similarity', in a legal context. The question is whether the second author based himself on the artistic values that the original author put in the work.
That's an excellent point, and I understand that. But as a practical matter, it seems like "levels of similarity" would be at the heart of an argument that document B was "based on" document A. Having direct evidence that B was based on A seems a less likely scenario, although a legally much more straightforward one.
To take your play example, I may assert your script was based on my book, but if you deny it I'm stuck with trying to demonstrate that the similarities between the two are above and beyond what we'd expect from mere coincidence, right?
> So if someone blends two works into one (without permission), he's violating 2 author's copyrights.
This is more in the realm of philosophy than legality, but what I was getting at is this: I think there's a pretty strong and conventional argument to be made that much of what we call "creativity" is really a synthesis of pre-existing works and pre-existing ideas. At some point we start to consider this synthesis more inspiration than plagiarism. Intellectually I think it is interesting to consider where that line lies. (And, taking us back to the world of algorithms, whether you could claim, for instance, that a sophisticated enough markov-chain, given a large and diverse enough body of input, is eventually creating new works rather than simply synthesizing existing ones.)
> First, you need to stop thinking in terms of 'algorithms' and 'spinning'. It's irrelevant and confuses the discussion.
This is HN, not a court of law. It is entirely appropriate to use technical language here. I think if you understood what 'spinning' was you'd see that it was relevant to the legal situation even if these exact words may never be used in a legal action (although the very pre-existence of concrete spinning programs would actually be relevant as evidence that a deliberate process of copying had occurred).
> why 95% of legal chatter amongst technical people on the internet is meaningless to lawyers
I'd argue that a similar percentage of lawyers' technical discussions are meaningless to the reality of technology. As we move forward I'll wager that the lawyers will be the ones needing to do a greater percentage of the adjusting if they are to remain relevant.
> It is entirely appropriate to use technical language here.
Of course. I'm not telling anyone what to do. What I meant was, that to understand the legal issues, the explanations in these terms are irrelevant and obfuscate the thought processes that lead to the legal understanding of the situation. I understand perfectly what spinning is. But 'algorithmic spinning' is irrelevant in this context. It's not about the level or nature of mechanical changes. One shouldn't think about legal issues in quantitative ways. It's orthogonal to the system.
> As we move forward I'll wager that the lawyers will be the ones needing to do a greater percentage of the adjusting if they are to remain relevant.
Thanks for making my point for me. It's this technocratically warped world view that lies at the basis of the bigger part of misunderstandings about the legal field and how it relates to technology. The technical details are seldom relevant in most technology legal issues. or at least in a very different way than technologically oriented people look at it.
> One shouldn't think about legal issues in quantitative ways.
What about evidence? Presumably the copyright 'deriver' isn't just going to honestly detail how they stole the work. Surely an important part of the evidence is going to be what process was used to derive the work? If it can be established that an existing software package would produce an identical derivation surely that would be an important part of the evidence. Without understanding the processes of transformation (i.e. the spinning process) it may not be possible to accurately gauge the likelihood of the work having been derived versus a coincidence. This all seems to be firmly in the realm of quantities to me.
> It's this technocratically warped world view that lies at the basis of the bigger part of misunderstandings about the legal field and how it relates to technology.
I think the 'technocratically warped world view' is based on the notion that the function of the legal system is ultimately to serve society - not the other way around. Given that technological change is the major driver of social change it will necessarily also drive changes in the legal system. Situations where ancient laws and ignorant judges determine cases represent failures of the legal system and the more it fails the less relevant and powerful it must become for society to flourish. Inevitably it will be the legal system that needs to 'warp' itself towards the technocratic one rather than the other way around. Of course what I'm talking about is a medium/long term trend. Anyone expecting this to happen in any individual legal case would be making a big mistake.
1. Don't jump to the conclusion that the output of a spinning algorithm doesn't infringe the copyright in the original input. I haven't done any research on the question, but I'd be willing to bet a six-pack of Lone Star (beer) that a decent copyright lawyer could make the case that it is indeed an infringement. (I don't do litigation anymore, so I'm not that lawyer.)
2. You should immediately look into registering the copyright for your work -- if you're a U.S. author, you can't file suit for infringement without first registering the copyright.
3. GENERAL NOTE: Anyone concerned about having their copyrighted work ripped off should register the copyright NO LATER THAN three months after first "publication." Otherwise, you may well forfeit your right to have the judge order an infringer to pay your attorneys' fees (which can be no small matter). The U.S. Copyright Office has on-line registration capability at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/.
IMO, that describes the situation well
> and on which you would not have any copyright claims.
That is also my understanding, unless I could somehow prove that they violated my copyright in the construction of this work. For instance, if one could prove that my copyrighted content was fed into a spinning algorithm to generate this new document, I think you could argue that it is in fact a derivative work.
But it's kind of an academic question anyway, as it would be very difficult to prove that in the first place, and likely not worth the time and trouble if you did. It may even require new legal precedent to win that sort of case, but I'm not that familiar with the entire scope of copyright law.
Just as an intellectual exercise, suppose I fed one of the Harry Potter books into a spinning algorithm to come up with a book about Larry Kotter, a pupil at the Cowpimple Academy of Sorcery. If my new book is just substituting synonymous terms in the original work, I'm pretty sure I'd lose a copyright claim. But how different would it need to be to become legal? To become undetectable? Suppose I was synthesizing multiple works for my spun article? How sophisticated would my spinning algorithm need to be before it really was creating new works?