|
Does this applicable only for copyright that is registered within 3
months of publication or before the infraction? Also, does lack of
copyright warning will help the defendant in anyway?
Sorry for keep asking this. I feel that I am not asking the question
properly. Some people seems to misunderstood my questions because I
did it. It's not their fault, it's mine and thanks for those that have
helped.
I saw this funny problem in internet:
Parade Magazine column of May 5, 1996, Marilyn discusses the following
riddle:
In a meeting of all the native wives, a (male) missionary announces
that at least one husband has been unfaithful. It is the tradition on
that island that if a native wife discovers her husband has not been
faithful, she would shoot him that midnight. Every native wife knew
about the fidelity of every husband except her own, and never
discussed her husband's fidelity with anyone else. After seven
peaceful nights, shots were fired at midnight on the eight night. How
many husbands were unfaithful?
I want to incorporate the riddle in as a sample in a chapter in my
book. I will paraphrase it rather than copying it. I will do something
like this:
5.4A Chunk of "Advanced" Applied Math
I got this interesting problem on the web . I paraphrase it for your
convenient. A missionary come to a village full with primitive people.
The missionary says, "At least one of your husbands is not faithful."
The wives in the villages have a tradition of shooting their husband
the night they've learnt that their husband cheat on them. Each wife
knows the husbands that cheat except her own. The wives do not discuss
marital affair with each other. After 7 peaceful nights, on the 8th
night, a few husbands get shot. How many husbands cheat in the
village?
5.4.1Intuitive Proof
All right, for something as complicated is this, we could use
intuition to probe the answers first before using logic for the killer
proof. The key here is that each wife knows the number of husbands
that cheat within 1 unit of husband error. If a wife know n cheating
husbands, the number of cheating husband is either , or , namely, if
her own husband cheat too. Once each wife knows that the number of
cheating husband is one more than the number of other cheating
husbands that she knows, well then, "a woman got to do what a woman
got to do."
Say there is only 1 husband that cheats. The cheated wife knows all
the other cheating husbands. That means she'll know that the other
entire husbands do not cheat. However, the missionary says that at
least 1 husband cheat (assuming the missionary is telling the truth).
Therefore, the wife would have learnt that her husband cheat at the
first night and would have shot her husband at that first night.
If there are only 2 husbands that cheat, then hubbies will get shot on
the second night. On the first night, each wife that is cheated cannot
conclude that her husband cheats. At least one of them cheats but she
will also know that there is another husband that is cheating. However
given that there is only one other husband that cheat, if that husband
is the only one then he would have been shot on the first night.
Hence, 1 peaceful night will indicate to any cheated wife that there
are at least 2 husbands cheating. She also knows that there is only
one other husband that cheats. Hence, she'll know her hubby is
cheating too. Therefore if there are 2 husbands that cheat, hubbies
will get shot on the second day. Again, 2 peaceful nights mean more
than 2 husbands cheat.
The patterns indicate that the days the hubbies get shot should be the
same with the number of cheating husbands.
5.4.2Logical Proof
Now here is the logical proof.
Let me introduce a lemma for a while. Lemma is just like a theorem,
except that its result is not that significant. People go through the
pain of proofing lemma only for
Will doing what I did count as copyright infringement? I see that
people use von neuman utility function, or cinderella story, etc.
freely. It seems that it is a famous riddle that has been around from
who knows when. Also if what I did is indeed a copyright infringement
if I publish it and because I think it is not a copyright infringement
I publish it anyway how does/will lack of copyright notice in the
riddle help me.
Thanks,
|
| |
| |
In article <797a9cfc.0312291526.4ab00d2f@posting.google.com> jonathanthio@yahoo.com.sg (jonathan) writes:
Does this applicable only for copyright that is registered within 3
months of publication or before the infraction?
Statutory damages (which are not $100,000, as you keep posting --
see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504) are available
only for published works if they are registered within three months
of first publication. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412
Also, does lack of
copyright warning will help the defendant in anyway?
It might help you show that the infringement was innocent, but
won't affect whether you are an infringer.
Sorry for keep asking this. I feel that I am not asking the question
properly. Some people seems to misunderstood my questions because I
did it. It's not their fault, it's mine and thanks for those that have
helped.
You aren't going to get an answer whether you are allowed to include
a problem you saw from anybody who knows anything here. Nobody wants
the liability based on your recitation of incomplete facts.
That won't stop "Richard" from telling you what to do, but don't
listen to his advice.
If you are really concerned, either --
- Contact the person whose problem you want to use, and ask for
permission, or
- Hire a copyright attorney to give you an opinion, so at least
you might be able to show that you are an innocent infringer, or
- Write your own problem. The problem you want to include isn't
that great. But nobody here is going to tell you whether your
version gets out from under the copyright, or
- Recognize that it's unlikely that you will be sued and risk it,
knowing that you have already infringed any copyright there may
be by posting the problem here.
[riddle snipped for obvious reason]
It seems that it is a famous riddle that has been around from
who knows when.
Depends on how long "who knows when" is. Works that are old enough
have entered the public domain. But anything in Parade isn't even
close to being old enough.
Also if what I did is indeed a copyright infringement
if I publish it and because I think it is not a copyright infringement
I publish it anyway how does/will lack of copyright notice in the
riddle help me.
Before 1978, a lot. Notice was required for copyright. Between 1978
and 1988, somewhat. Missing notice could be corrected in some
instances. After 1988, not a bit. Notice isn't required.
|
| |
| |
jonathan wrote:
Does this applicable only for copyright that is registered within 3
months of publication or before the infraction? Also, does lack of
copyright warning will help the defendant in anyway?
Sorry for keep asking this. I feel that I am not asking the question
properly. Some people seems to misunderstood my questions because I
did it. It's not their fault, it's mine and thanks for those that have
helped.
Are you even reading the replies?
1) copyright protection begins at the moment of creation.
2) there is no need to have the article copyrighted with the federal office.
3) it is not necessary to state that it is copyrighted.
If someone challenges, they will have the burden of proof that the work is
their original creation to begin with.
Since it is basic math problem, it makes little difference as simple math is
not protectable.
I doubt seriously that anyone will challenge.
|
| |
| |
hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) wrote in message news:<bsqfd6$n2u$1@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu>...
In article <797a9cfc.0312291526.4ab00d2f@posting.google.com> jonathanthio@yahoo.com.sg (jonathan) writes:
Statutory damages (which are not $100,000, as you keep posting --
see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504) are available
only for published works if they are registered within three months
of first publication. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412
It might help you show that the infringement was innocent, but
won't affect whether you are an infringer.
You aren't going to get an answer whether you are allowed to include
a problem you saw from anybody who knows anything here. Nobody wants
the liability based on your recitation of incomplete facts.
Which part is incomplete? What should I explain more?
That won't stop "Richard" from telling you what to do, but don't
listen to his advice.
If you are really concerned, either --
- Contact the person whose problem you want to use, and ask for
permission, or
I've contacted parade asking what's the original author is. No answer.
- Hire a copyright attorney to give you an opinion, so at least
you might be able to show that you are an innocent infringer, or
How much will that costs?
- Write your own problem. The problem you want to include isn't
that great. But nobody here is going to tell you whether your
version gets out from under the copyright, or
I could. Well, the problem is not that great anyway it's just that I
like it.
- Recognize that it's unlikely that you will be sued and risk it,
knowing that you have already infringed any copyright there may
be by posting the problem here.
Yea. People copy whole song and stuff easily. Also the homepage maryln
is wrong doesn't seem to need permission.
Axioms also do not seem to get copyrighted at all. Even though a
restatement and theorems from axioms are effectively derivative works.
[riddle snipped for obvious reason]
Don't worry about the riddle. It is not the original riddle that I
copy here.
Depends on how long "who knows when" is. Works that are old enough
have entered the public domain. But anything in Parade isn't even
close to being old enough.
Before 1978, a lot. Notice was required for copyright. Between 1978
and 1988, somewhat. Missing notice could be corrected in some
instances. After 1988, not a bit. Notice isn't required.
Without notice how can we be sure that the work is not registered
within 3 months of publication?
If they just sue me for damage than the damage will be insignificant
anyway because it's only a 3-4 sentences and doesn't seem to have any
commercial value.
That pesky $150 thousands statutory damage is what I am scared of.
Gee, a long time ago I lost my property to thieves and there is no
$150,000 statutory damage for actual stealing.
Also, it is possible that the whole thing is actual event. In that
case facts cannot be copyrighted right?
If we write a review for a game say warcraft, etc. Do we violate
copyright by putting some screenshots even though the purpose of the
review is to promote the game.
|
| |
| |
In article <797a9cfc.0312312125.5389ba85@posting.google.com> jonathanthio@yahoo.com.sg (jonathan) writes:
Without notice how can we be sure that the work is not registered
within 3 months of publication?
Look up the registration at the Copyright Office. Records since
1978 are online. http://www.copyright.gov/records/
That pesky $150 thousands statutory damage is what I am scared of.
Gee, a long time ago I lost my property to thieves and there is no
$150,000 statutory damage for actual stealing.
Not $150,000. UP TO $150,000 per work, and the court finds just.
The minimum is only $750 per work, reduced to $200 if the
infringement was innocent.
Also, it is possible that the whole thing is actual event. In that
case facts cannot be copyrighted right?
Facts can't be copyrighted. Description of facts can be.
Newspaper stories are copyrighed, even though many describe
actual events.
|
| |
| |
|
