[GRASS-user] color copyright (was: [off-topic] spoke too soon)

[Brad Douglas]

On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:43 +1300, Hamish wrote:
> Brad Douglas wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 13:25 -0700, Hamish wrote:
> > > Brad:
> > > > (paraphrasing) You can't copyright colors
> > > 
> > > ... but can you copyright a series of colors? Maybe I'm thinking more
> > > from a mathematical standpoint versus a legal one, but if you take
> > > the 2D case instead of the 1D case, then you have an image, which is
> > > copyrightable. Presumably we can incorporate anything from GMT though
> > > (GPL). [I like their bathymetry scheme]
> > 
> > "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs;
> > mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring;
> > mere listings of ingredients or contents."
> > 
> > That leads me to believe that the image product is copyrightable, but
> > the input colors (the ingredients) are not copyrightable.
> 
> The original work is in the combination of the colors. But I think you
> are right it is the image not the colors which have copyright. (unless
> the rules themselves are printed, as in computer code or a poem)
> ??
> 
> It was my understanding that that wording was there to stop paint
> companies from trying to lay claim to some specific "Nevada Sunset"
> RRR:GGG:BBB combo. They can trademark the name, but not copyright the
> color. (sorry to mix trademark & copyright here)

That seems like a reasonable justification.  In reality, I see very few
palettes on the site that are in question.

> similarly (but less relevant) Harley-Davidson recently losing it's court
> case over trying to trademark the sound of its engine when another
> manufacturer came out with something sounding not-dissimilar. The best
> they could do would be to copyright a recording of it, but that is about
> as enforceable as copyrighting a recording of 4'33" of silence.
> 
> > I'll get clarification from one of my despicable lawyer friends. ;-)
> 
> hey, if someone doesn't like to share, then from purely a public
> relations standpoint we probably should respect that. Even if we are
> legally free to do it, there is a moral duty not to.

Of course, we should respect people's work and ask for permission if the
license is not obviously compatible.  We should also always give credit
where due, no matter the license.

I'm interested in how this could possibly affect GRASS and other OSS.
It's good to have some understanding of the legal implications of our
work and how others could potentially abuse it.

> We can make r.colors accept any rules file the user gives it, the
> question we are dealing with is what can be incorporated into the offical
> grass distro.

Correct.

> the individual colors in the palette can't be, but what of the order
>  of the palette?

This is why I want clarification.  OTOH, could we probably ++ or -- the
RGB triplets, but again, that's bad form.

I'll contact the site maintainer for guidance provided someone has time
to do the work of importing interesting palettes.  Anyone up for the
task?  If not we can drop the thread unless anyone is interested in my
findings.


-- 
73, de Brad KB8UYR/6 <rez touchofmadness com>