Is it possible to copyright an effect?

Discussion in 'Legal Issues' started by Coopzie, Jul 8, 2013.

  1. #1
    So if you have an effect which you use to create designs with, could you copyright the effect? to prevent others from using it?
     
    Coopzie, Jul 8, 2013 IP
  2. stelthius

    stelthius Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #2
    Everything can be copyright if i am not mistaken even posting images on the internet was copyrighted :D but it depends how serious you want to take it.
     
    stelthius, Jul 12, 2013 IP
  3. Willief

    Willief Greenhorn

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    #3
    If you have enough money you can become a patent troll and sue others for using your effect. But you won't be able to look in the mirror anymore because you are too ashamed of yourself.
     
    Willief, Jul 12, 2013 IP
  4. hsnetwork

    hsnetwork Active Member

    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    80
    #4
    You can easily copyright anything, but in order for it to truely hold up, it has to be something unique, not a deviation of a previously copyrighted work, and not be something commonly in use.

    You should also file your work with the US Copyright office. It's not required but gives a little added piece of protection. (Assuing you're in the US)
     
    hsnetwork, Jul 12, 2013 IP
    Spoiltdiva likes this.
  5. Revelations-Decoder

    Revelations-Decoder Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    152
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #5

    Oh I don't know Acacia probably like their expensive mirrors they could have brought with Yahoo's 12.4 milion > http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/03/acacia-patent-lawsuit-yahoo/
     
    Revelations-Decoder, Jul 12, 2013 IP
  6. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #6
    A copyright is for original works of authorship. It would not cover the result of an effect to be applied. The resulting effect, in each instance, could by copyrighted as an original work. But in general, saying that you have an effect that "makes letters glow" or "makes the image look like a painting" or "turns anything into a black and white image" would not be the type of thing that is even covered by a copyright or something where you could stop others from making something that resulted in that same effect.

    Depending on what, specifically, it does, it could theoretically be covered by a patent, but even that sounds like a stretch and would obviously depend on the actual facts and details of what you're trying to protect.

    I would venture a guess that what you are proposing is not something that you could protect. Others could find and apply and use something that created the "same effect" as yours and in ending up with the same effect would not violate any intellectual property of yours.

    Now, if you wanted to copyright the actual underlying code that makes the effect happen, you could do that. And if you did, nobody could copy your code. But that would not keep somebody from writing their own code that created the same result.

    Neither of these statements are even remotely close to true.
     
    browntwn, Jul 12, 2013 IP
  7. Nigel Lew

    Nigel Lew Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    406
    Best Answers:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    295
    #7
    Browntwn is correct across the board, the answer is NO in the first place. Further, a few of you folks should never speak in the legal forum again.

    Nigel
     
    Nigel Lew, Jul 12, 2013 IP
  8. stelthius

    stelthius Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #8

    It was a loosely used term don't take everything literal ;) But yes even posting images on the web was copyrighted.
     
    stelthius, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  9. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #9
    Loosely or not, it is simply incorrect. I have no idea what you mean when you say, "posting images on the web was copyrighted" since it does not make sense. Posting images on the Internet conveys no copyright whatsoever. The copyright on an image exists totally independent of posting on the Internet. No copyright rights are gained when you post an image online. So, again, nothing you said makes a lick of sense.
     
    browntwn, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  10. stelthius

    stelthius Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #10
    Actually you should read up because it was copyrighted it was covered on several websites also lol.
     
    stelthius, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  11. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #11
    What was copyrighted? I have no idea what you are talking about.
     
    browntwn, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  12. stelthius

    stelthius Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #12
    You have no idea what i'm talking about but bash what i said, Typical. Anyways, years and years ago the right to post images online was copyright whilst it isn't taken serious in any effect any more it was a real copyright. I don't wish to argue over such a thing but it was copyright.
     
    stelthius, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  13. ryan_uk

    ryan_uk Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Best Answers:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    465
    #13
    So, if re-post an image from TheOatMeal.com here I have copyright of it? No. The copyright belongs with the creator (Matthew Inman). He can't stop me from posting it, but he can request a takedown as he is the copyright owner. I'm not sure what you are getting at, mate. Maybe you are confused due to the dumb changes in copyright laws (here in the UK). Copyright still exists here, though.
     
    ryan_uk, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  14. Spoiltdiva

    Spoiltdiva Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    7,841
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Best Answers:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    520
    #14
    I think someone should copyright this thread, otherwise a comedian might steal it and use it in his act.:rolleyes:
     
    Spoiltdiva, Jul 15, 2013 IP
    malky66, browntwn and ryan_uk like this.
  15. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #15
    The part I understood was wrong, the rest was gibberish. So, yes I pointed that out to any readers of this thread.

    "the right to post images online was copyright ... it was a real copyright"​

    I hope you realize that simply does not make sense, at least in English. Care to try again?
     
    browntwn, Jul 15, 2013 IP
    Spoiltdiva and ryan_uk like this.
  16. biftek

    biftek Active Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    98
    #16
    you are confusing copyright with trademark

    Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished.

    the way the law stands is as soon as you take something from an idea to a work it is copyrighted to you , you don't need to file it with any company etc

    A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others

    Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark
     
    biftek, Jul 15, 2013 IP