Comment by xandrius | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xandrius | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here is my very simple view:

- exact reuse of a long-ish word sequence(s) without credits -> not cool.

- complete/partial reinterpretation of an already existing story in different words -> it's fine

- Traced/almost identical image/drawing/painting (with the intent to fool someone) -> not cool

- Visual imitation in style/content but different approach or usage -> it's fine

I think people are too attached by the novelty of something, sure if I write a bunch of words and you repeat them as yours, that's not cool. But if something I make inspires someone and they take it, reframe it, rephrase it or whatever, go ahead.

People adore Star Wars, which is an absolute one to one of a hero's journey, it still has value. Most modern fantasy are basically fanfics of Middle Earth, still good that they exist.

Imagine someone just spamming sequences of notes at random for their whole life, does it mean they own anything else made here afterwards +70/80/90... Years?

The law broadly agrees with you here.

Non transformative use -> Not cool.

Transformative -> it's fine

Original work attempting to deceive or confuse the origin as being by another. -> not cool

Original work emulating the style of another without attempting to imply involvement of the other -> it's fine.

Derivative work isn’t automatically allowed under copyright law regardless of whether you’re trying to “deceive” people or not.

Depends if it's sufficiently transformative or not.

That just means it’s then subject to its own copyright. It doesn’t mean that the derivative work is also exempt from the terms of the original copyright.

For example, you can use a sample in a new song. And that new song can by copyrighted. But you still have to seek permission from the copyright holders of the sample to use it.

Fair use is the only time it’s legal to use another copyrighted piece without consent. And the rules for fair use vary from country to county.

Seek? In the grand scheme of things asking forgiveness only applies if you're going to not be that transformative and something like YouTube's automated copyright strikes might affect you. "Ask Forgiveness" is often a better option.

Fair use is a defense, not a requirement - You don't need permission to claim fair use; it's a legal defense if you're sued Seeking permission can backfire - Copyright holders may deny permission even when fair use would apply, creating unnecessary barriers.

This is especially true for parody and commentary.

> Seek? In the grand scheme of things asking forgiveness only applies if you're going to not be that transformative

That’s not why I said.

> something like YouTube's automated copyright strikes might affect you. "Ask Forgiveness" is often a better option.

Now you’re talking about platform quirks rather than copyright law.

> Fair use is a defense, not a requirement

Actually “fair use” is defined by law in a lot of counties. It’s not a defence, it’s a legal right.

> You don't need permission to claim fair use;

That’s not what I said.

> it's a legal defense if you're sued Seeking permission can backfire

It’s spelt “defence” (with a C not an S) and the point is you seek permission before distribution, not after

Not everything in life follows the “ask for forgiveness not permission” rule ;)

> Copyright holders may deny permission even when fair use would apply, creating unnecessary barriers.

Copyright holders cannot deny fair use in jurisdictions where fair use laws apply.

The difference between Seek and Ask Forgiveness in the situation outlined is that Seek lays out costs before hand and generally they are minimal, and Ask Forgiveness can determine costs at the will of the person sampled or remove the work completely from circulation.

> People adore Star Wars, which is an absolute one to one of a hero's journey, it still has value.

Yeah but A Hero's Journey is not a literal story, it's more of a framework written in a book called "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" for what makes a story interesting and how various original stories like myths, folklore etc (like the Bible) always followed the same pattern.

The author dissected that pattern, and then it has been followed by many writers/creators for what is considered to be a good model of a story. Screenwriting classes literally teach it, along with other stuff like The Three Act structure etc.

And if you really look into, almost all good stories follow that pattern to some extent, but it is the implementation that makes each story special.

It's like a bit like saying "People adore [x] webapp which is an absolute one to one of React, it still has value" but both are fundamentally different things.

I think this is correct, and that it's school (which with good intentions) overemphasises the importance of complete originality

It's less about originality than crediting sources.

If I restate something using completely my own words, I'm still supposed to cite the source where I got the idea.

If something is completely my own invention, and I didn't use any sources to create it, then that's original and I don't need to credit anyone else. But that's very rare.

how do you account for the compilation of your insight that was formed through the consumption of many prior examples? do you feel compelled to thoroughly cite them, or have they crossed a threshold marked through your ability to now generate new similar things without directly referencing them that it's "all original you" now?

If you're writing an academic/research paper, you still have to find something to cite.

"I know this stuff, just trust me" isn't a valid citation. The point is to give anyone who reads the paper a way to a) verify that each fact you put in the paper has solid academic sourcing, and b) find more information about it if they wish.

If you know a lot of stuff about the topic already, that's great—but unless you've already written and published papers on the subject, you can't just cite yourself.

Yeah there's some grey area there I guess. But it took me quite a while as a student to understand that I needed to cite sources even if I was "using my own words" and not quoting passages verbatim.

Certainly there are styles and broad arcs that many creations follow that are not directly attributable to a specific source.

Also at some point citing is not needed. If I use addition I do not need to cite relevant parts of for example Principia Mathematica.

In the end hard lines are very hard.

Everything Is A Remix.

Producing something entirely novel in an act of pure creativity is essentially a tall tale - like Newton and the Apple - possibly some truth to it, but definitely mythologized.

I don’t think this is entirely correct mutants exist. Everyone while in nature something goes wrong. Something random happens. You get something novel and new. This happens and creativity as well so most things are remix but entirely new novel things do exist because the world is not static it is random

Reply on news.ycombinator.com