undefined | Better HN

0 pointsZambyte6mo ago0 comments

Software I write at work is not artistic expression yet is covered by copyright.

This isn't a counter argument, just pointing out how absurd copyright is.

0 comments

Your software is definitely artistic expression. You signed over the rights to those expressions to your employer.

(IANAL)

My software is definitely not artistic expression. I signed over the rights to the software to my employer. These statements are not codependent in any way.

hamdingers6mo ago

Always disappointing to hear creative writers denigrate their craft just because their main audience happens to be computers.

kemitchell6mo ago

Copyright under US law does not require "artistic expression". One of the requirements is called "creativity", but it's very easy to meet. The key phrase is literally "some minimal degree of creativity".

The fundamental policy choice was to protect computer software under intellectual property law, with exclusive rights and market compensation. There were a number of ways that could have been done. Other jurisdictions toyed with new, software-specific laws. But in the end the call in the US was to bring it under existing copyright law with some tweaks to definitions and a small handful of software-specific rules.

fluoridation6mo ago

A code in this sense is something different. It's a shorthand for a longer description of an object. It'd be like a hotel copyrighting the relationship between a room number and its physical location within the building, or copyrighting resistor colors.

ZambyteOP6mo ago

I understand. The different meanings of "code" in this conversation is why I said "software" in my comment instead of code.

Copyrighting software is as absurd the other things you listed.

papercrane6mo ago

In the US copyright just requires a level of originality. The bar isn't very high, but for example simple logos, like IBMs blue lines logo is not copyrightable.

There are examples of software code that is probably not copyrightable, but that's limited to very simple code that has only obvious implementations.

fluoridation6mo ago

>Copyrighting software is as absurd the other things you listed.

I don't really agree, and for context I think copyright in general is nonsense.

hathawsh6mo ago

Consider these thoughts: https://wiki.c2.com/?SoftwareIsArt

ZambyteOP6mo ago

Our role as programmers being closer to artists than engineers does not make code closer to paintings than bridges. We do have highly repeatable patterns. Nearly every program can be essentially boiled down to some subset of CRUD + tranformation.

Even if it is art (I'm not convinced), the recent artificial scarcity on art is absurd. Some other thoughts to consider:

- https://drewdevault.com/2020/08/24/Alice-in-Wonderland.html

- https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/23/Sustainable-creativity-po...

hamdingers6mo ago

I've never seen a bridge I wouldn't consider a work of art either.

embedding-shape6mo ago

Also the collection of essays carrying the name "Hackers & Painters" is of relevance.

maxerickson6mo ago

Artistic expression isn't the standard in US law.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jimbokun6mo ago

Your software is definitely artistic expression. You signed over the rights to those expressions to your employer.

(IANAL)

ZambyteOP6mo ago

My software is definitely not artistic expression. I signed over the rights to the software to my employer. These statements are not codependent in any way.

hamdingers6mo ago

Always disappointing to hear creative writers denigrate their craft just because their main audience happens to be computers.

kemitchell6mo ago

fluoridation6mo ago

ZambyteOP6mo ago

I understand. The different meanings of "code" in this conversation is why I said "software" in my comment instead of code.

Copyrighting software is as absurd the other things you listed.

papercrane6mo ago

In the US copyright just requires a level of originality. The bar isn't very high, but for example simple logos, like IBMs blue lines logo is not copyrightable.

There are examples of software code that is probably not copyrightable, but that's limited to very simple code that has only obvious implementations.

fluoridation6mo ago

>Copyrighting software is as absurd the other things you listed.

I don't really agree, and for context I think copyright in general is nonsense.

hathawsh6mo ago

Consider these thoughts: https://wiki.c2.com/?SoftwareIsArt

ZambyteOP6mo ago

Even if it is art (I'm not convinced), the recent artificial scarcity on art is absurd. Some other thoughts to consider:

- https://drewdevault.com/2020/08/24/Alice-in-Wonderland.html

- https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/23/Sustainable-creativity-po...

hamdingers6mo ago

I've never seen a bridge I wouldn't consider a work of art either.

embedding-shape6mo ago

Also the collection of essays carrying the name "Hackers & Painters" is of relevance.

maxerickson6mo ago

Artistic expression isn't the standard in US law.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse