On Wed, 09 Jul 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > I believe you're mistaken about the minimum-length requirement: It's more of a minimum creative content requirement. It's very difficult to defent a copyright on a work that has so little content that it contains little or no creative material. I presume that's what Branden was getting at. > several artists have copyrighted silent pieces of music, for example. To my knowledge, none of these pieces have had their copyrights successfully defended. Furthermore, what is copyrighted is typically the donut (eg. the music punctuated by silence) rather than the hole itself (eg. the silence.) [Or at least, that's what I'd expect any sane lawyer to argue who wished to see his client's copyright argument prevail.] [I herby copyright these 7 spaces: ' '.] > There is also the emerging field of nanofiction, which is confined to > 55 words or less. Many of Emily Dickinson's poems are shorter than > that, and each would receive separate copyright protection. Presumably these works contain some spark of creativity, which is most likely copyrightable. Moreover, they are most likely defendable copyrights. [However, my spaces above are probably not... but maybe if I stuck them on a 15m wide canvas with a nice soothing white background with 2m high black apostrophes they would be...] Don Armstrong -- What I can't stand is the feeling that my brain is leaving me for someone more interesting. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpwp5f5Y9lv6.pgp
Description: PGP signature