On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:15 PM Russell McOrmond
wrote:
> a) The question of when software is used as a viewer of art created by a
> human. In this case there is two "works", the work of art and the software
> which is projecting it. Running the software is not a public performance
> of the s
Responding to Lawrence as I mostly agree with what he is saying, and want
to add to it.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:03 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> What I mean is that we are indeed speaking about two different works. As I
> said before, one is the projector and the other is the movie. They are
> re
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 5:50 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Two problems in that sentence: First, the artwork is not "resulting." The
> code doesn't create the artwork, it merely facilitates the display of the
> artwork.
>
I don't understand that to be "computer-generated art" in the relevant
sense.
o both the movie and to the (open source?) projector software
that displays it. I just don't want the two to be confused with each other, or
one to take or claim copyrights in the other.
/Larry
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Pamela Chestek
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 12:
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.
On 8/28/2019 1:18 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Pam Chestek wrote:
>
> > You've misidentified the copyrighted work. The statutory term is
> "computer progr
