[Bf-committers] copyright and suzanne

[Martin Poirier]

--- Tom M <letterrip at gmail.com> wrote:

> > No offense, but this just sounds overly
> complicated
> > for nothing.
> 
> I can understand that view, but alas, it is the way
> copyright works. 
> For instance making a collage out of photos from
> magazines is also a
> derivative work.  There are all sorts of things that
> we as reasonable
> people think ought to be covered by fair use but,
> court cases have
> shown that this is not the case.  (Ie see the
> relatively recent
> successful lawsuits that were won based on
> 'sampling'.).  While I'm
> not overly concerned about this, I prefer to have
> such issues
> explicitly spelled out to avoid problems.

I'm not overly concerned either, but if it could be a
problem, it should be dealt with.

> > That was quite clear to me since any output would
> be
> > straight copies from the code.
> 
> How so?  I could do a screenshot of both the logo
> and of the startup
> screen, no copying from the code required.  They
> just happen to be
> output at startup/runtime as opposed to being output
> based on a key
> combination.

The difference would be in the process. Any image you
render is being processed by the rendering engine, the
splash and logo are straight from the code.

Which brings me back to my questions: When is it
decided that something becomes content? What if
someone remodelled Suzanne by hand? Deformed her to no
end? If you keep only one ear, is it still GPLed? Only
one edge-loop?

Martin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com