|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
This is currently unsettled at law, but I think you are misunderstanding the low
threshold of originality that copyright requires.
It's not anywhere near as cut and dried as you seem to think, for I am allowed
to use tools, even tools that do a lot of the work for me, in order to express
myself and still get copyright protection for my creation.
If what you're saying were true, we could not have copyright in much sculpture,
or buildings, or at all in photographs just for starters. Many things in which
we allow copyright would have to be excluded, not just those few examples.
One person's machine generated code is another's clever tool use, and use of
tools does not negate creative expression, nor does it negate the creative
expression of the tool builder.
One of the reasons for this is that we don't have an adequate answer to the
question "what is art?". We can't even pretend to judge on the merits
so we set the standard very, very low.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|