On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Eduardo Gutierrez de Oliveira wrote: > Just note, this 100% concept implies both 'look' and 'concept', that is, > you could change 100% of the text and still be violating copyrights by > using the same 'concept', it is easier to see the exmaple of a picture or > a photo. You could see a great concepto on a photo, and instead of > photocopying the thing you go and make a photo with exactly the same > parts, it would look very much the same, but to be literal, it would not > be the same at all, it would also be 100% different (because none of the > parts of the original were taken), this is not considered fair use because > you are still stealing the concept. You missed the boat completely. You're talking about something that is not even related to what we are. And I don't mean your example being unrelated to MUDs, I mean you're trying to prove something that has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. What you create by yourself and what you create by modifying someone else's work is different. Your photograph example is flawed, then, in that it isn't illegal (duh) to take the photograph yourself that may look similar, but it is illegal if you took their photograph, made it look slightly different, and slapped your name on it as if it were entirely your own. And none of this has to deal with an area. The point is that the area is copyrighted, he can prove that he had the area first, and he can prove that it was stolen/redistributed without permission. That's all. End of thread, done. <*=-+Daniel+-=*> "Forgive me father, for I am sin." +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: | | http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST