<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
We may have veered to a point where no one is interested as this
relates to the CAL, so I'm moving the discussion to the
license-discuss list.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/28/2019 1:18 PM, Lawrence Rosen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01f201d55dc4$a2f0c940$e8d25bc0$@rosenlaw.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">Pam Chestek wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">> </span>You've
misidentified the copyrighted work. The statutory term is
"computer program." You are describing it as limited to the
code, but the Copyright Office's view is that the screen
displays are part of the "computer program." Your distinction
between the literal code on your end and the instructions it
sends to render a display is not one the Copyright Office
currently agrees with. I receive information generated by your
computer program that tells my computer, acting as a remote
terminal, what will appear on the screen. I have not received
a tangible copy of the computer program, so there is no
distribution, but there has been a display of the computer
program. If you want to argue that the Copyright Office's view
on screen displays also means the software has bee
distributed, and therefore the requirements of the GPL must be
met, we can go there.<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">Pam, I believe
that you have misidentified the copyrighted work. The
copyright law contains many provisions that deal with the
display of copyrighted works using broadcast and networking
technology. (That is not the subject of "open source.") But
the works that are displayed are themselves usually <u>copyrighted</u>
works, not red boxes on a screen. Of course, the software
that operates on the broadcasters' computers is also
copyrighted, but <u>those</u> copyrights are not breached
because of the copyrights on what they display. You are
confusing the works displayed from the software technology
that does the displaying, the projector from the movie being
projected.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Sorry, switched hypotheticals without warning. Assume the screen
display is not just the red box but sufficiently creative to be
copyrightable in its own right. (The red box was used to create a
hypothetical that avoided the Javascript problem.) I have made an
original, creative interface that is part of my computer program.
The Copyright Office considers the code that creates it and the
screen display that is created by the code the same work and courts
have adopted that position.<br>
<br>
In the case of computer-generated art, I assume your position is
that the code and the resulting artwork are two different
copyrightable works, even though the visual representation is
entirely dictated by the code?<br>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01f201d55dc4$a2f0c940$e8d25bc0$@rosenlaw.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">> Let's move to
the proprietary world for a moment. I have given you a copy of
a computer program with a browser-based graphical user
interface. I have licensed it to you for your sole use on a
single computer. You install it on a server and make it
available to the world. I hope we agree that there is a breach
of the license that results in a claim of copyright
infringement.<span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">No, we don't
necessarily agree. First, if there is an explicit license
involved, I'd need to read its terms and conditions.
Proprietary licenses can be unfair but nonetheless
enforceable. Second, assume a simple license that permits me
to run that browser on a single computer, but I invite my
friends and colleagues into my home to watch some display on
my screen. I have not breached that browser license. Do you
have super bowl or academy awards parties at your house,
using your "single computer" licensed software and hardware?
Of course, displaying those copyrighted programs at
commercial movie theaters with a single browser is not
permitted by the Copyright Act.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
The hypothetical assumes the license is breached, so it doesn't
matter what the license says. The act that occurred upon which to
base a copyright infringement claim is showing a copyrightable
interface to the public. The hypothetical was making the software
available to the public at large, because indeed the display has to
be to the public for there to be an infringement of the right of
display. So your distinction is correct but in my hypothetical that
requirement was met. Your client is the harmed party, where its
software is available to all sorts of people who don't have a
license for it. Copyright infringement is exercising one or more of
the exclusive rights of an author in section 106 without permission.
Are you saying in my hypothetical you will tell your client that
there is no claim for copyright infringement? If there is a claim,
which one of the exclusive rights in section 106 will you allege has
been infringed and how?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01f201d55dc4$a2f0c940$e8d25bc0$@rosenlaw.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">> </span>"Since
… 1961, we have become increasingly aware of the enormous
potential importance of showing, rather than distributing,
copies as a means of disseminating an author's work...."<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">I am fully aware
of that reality. But read that sentence carefully: It is the
dissemination <u>of an author's work</u>, not a
dissemination of the display technology, that concerns the
copyright office. And as I suggested above, there are many
provisions of the US Copyright Act that draw that
distinction very clearly!</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
And in this case the author's work being disseminated is a computer
program.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a></div>
</body>
</html>