Software vendor argues that it has copyright in output of its CAD software

[zokier]

This is actually surprisingly interesting case. While I think most would agree that when software does purely "algorithmic processing" then the output would not be considered derivative work. But increasingly software suites include various templates and content libraries. When the output is then a composition of those templates and library content then I'd agree that there is an argument to be made that such output could be considered derivative work.

[segmondy]

By that line of reasoning, your compile's output is derivative work of the creative effort of the compiler writers.

[kmichaels]

Right, but usually the licensing around libraries/templates is quite clear? At least it should be.

Here's specifically what they're claiming copyright over:

"DDC’s counsel answered that DDC is focused on expressive content that is not in the actual design of the component, such as the font or the colors used, the shape of a comment box, or the placement of certain components around the design which appear in the design file, but which are not the design itself."

Which seems very weak. Clearly they really would want to go after the Chinese sub-contractor but know this is too hard.

Only way round this I can see is new legislation that means you can be held responsible for copyright violations of sub-contractor if you can reasonably expected to know they are violating copyright.

Going after copyright on the output files is daft and dangerous.

[1wd]

It seems plausible to me that the author of _some_ software would have copyright of that software's output. For example I assume the authors of a 100% non-interactive, real-time rendered audio-visual art piece (c.f. demo scene) would own the copyright of the output (e.g. a movie file), even if someone else runs the software.

Another example would be an interactive game. Here the player / user contributes a certain creative input, but still some game developers retain the right to stream gameplay (=distribute the output of the software which uses certain copyrighted assets?).

I guess a game like Minecraft might "cross the line" to where some of the output (any elaborately voxel constructions) might plausibly be owned by the player.

[rdtsc]

That is an interesting point.

Moreover, I am wondering, just for cases like these, if a company could make their output copy-writable on purpose. They could insert code or content in the output just to be able to claim copyright on the output not because they need to.

Think of a nightmare scenario if say Java compiled code would not include just bytecode but bits of JVM meshed together with the bytecode. Then Oracle could come after everyone compiling and selling java programs.

[maxerickson]

The other side of it is that refusing to offer reasonable licenses to users of the software will tend to cause them to stop being users.

[macmac]

I agree that the question is interesting and the result in other cases (e.g. code generation tools) might surprise many, but this doesn't appear to be a obvious example of output being a derivative work.

[macmac]

This case is with the Ninth Circuit on appeal. If you are interested in how courts conduct oral arguments in cases like this, there is a video recording available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000...

[icebraining]

I like how they really grill the lawyer of the plaintiff. Frankly, her explanations - especially when trying to come up with a test to distinguish their software from Photoshop - are pitiful.

[a_humean]

The defendant seems pretty scummy and deserving to be held accountable, but the plaintiff's strategy seems dead in the water. Judges are giving both a very good grilling.

[GnarfGnarf]

What I take from the description is that the defendant, Unigate Enterprise (UE), used the software (SDS/2) to produce drawings for its Chinese contractors. The drawings are in a proprietary file format that can only be viewed by SDS/2 (written by Design Data Corporation (DDC)).

Chinese contractors use illegal copies of SDS/2 to view the drawings. So yes, the Chinese have broken the law. It's Unigate's problem that they chose software that produces files that can't be openly shared.

In claiming that the output is copyrighted, DDC seems to be resorting to a last-ditch (and groundless) effort to sue their American client, UE, because they have little prospect of getting anything out of the Chinese.

Bottom line: [1] Somebody broke the law. [2] It has little to do with copyrighting a program's output.

[macmac]

Those are not the facts. UE didn't use SDS/2. They subcontracted work that requires the use of SDS/2 to a Chinese subcontractor who used an allegedly pirated copy of SDS/2 to do the work. It has to do with copyright in program output because that is what DDC is claiming. I would agree that the claim in this case is weak but it is before the 9th Circuit and their opinion is going to be very interesting either way.

[rdtsc]

> UE admitted that SDS/2 had been used to create files and drawings in five of its projects, but argued that they were made by contractors in China.

China piracy story time. I was talking to makers of a niche CAD type software package. It was niche enough that they simply knew all their customers pretty much by name. They went to a trade show to exhibit their software, and a group of Chinese engineers approached them, thanked them and told how much the love their software, it is the best really for what it does, etc, etc. So that was good, everyone was happy and smiling, except one thing - the company shown on their badges was not a client.

[jameskegel]

...continue

[siculars]

In other news... Bic pen, makers of ubiquitous writing implements, claims copyright over all writings made with said implements.

Where does it end?

[ris]

If we're asking "should a user be able to continue using files created with a program beyond the point that they are paying from that program?" we're not that far from the practical effects of such a decision already.

I'd wager that a good 90% of the world's graphical/artistic material is locked up in Adobe-proprietary formats for which the only practical editing software has moved to a cloud licensing model. Dispute with Adobe? Say goodbye to all your company's assets...

[achr2]

That is a really poor comparison. Imagine you built a piece of software that had tens of thousands of man hours of industry specifications, templates, calculations, symbol libraries, and regulatory compliance built in. Now imagine an american company was 'offshoring' their piracy to Chinese subcontractors who used that software illegally to produce intelligent CAD files (i.e. not just a CAD drawing, but bills of materials, specs, and calculation tables) that literally could not be produced to the same standards without that software. And then sold those files in the US market for major profit, without ever having payed for any licenses of your software or tools.

I am all for open standards, and I don't really care about individual piracy. But a company should be held responsible for the ethical production of their products no matter if they subcontract the work or not.

[ComodoHacker]

>Where does it end?

It rather only starts here. Just wait until AI tech evolve enough for AI-produced creative work to be minimally valuable.

[charonn0]

This seems like a bad idea for the vendor. Now all of their customers will have to evaluate the legal risks of merely using the software.

[macmac]

That's not a bad idea for any software that is critical to one's business.

[arca_vorago]

Once again the dangers of proprietary software in the businesplace raise their heads. I wish people with the ability would work on contributing more to the open source cad projects, because at one point suffering under autodesks draconionan and expensive licensing I tried to get a business to start switching but the open source stuff simply isn't up to snuff in most cases.

[alkonaut]

There are thousands of CAD packages out there and most are proprietary because they do proprietary stuff for a niche market.

All the open source CAD packages are general purpose cad (i.e. Basically "drawing") software.

I make a package with 100 man years of dev time that might have a total global market of 2000 users. It's not exactly something that would reach critical mass on github.

Even if we based our software on one of the open source packages we'd still be a huge chunk of proprietary software written as an extension.

CAD isn't just drawing lines.

[dade_]

I use FreeCAD for my 3D printing designs. It works great on Windows and Ubuntu (not so great on Mac), but for designing enclosures for electronics projects and printing them, it has met my needs. I think it takes longer to learn than AutoCAD's maker apps, but I know i will always have access to my designs. It will be a shame if all of this open hardware for 3D printing, and CNC routers doesn't result in a feature rich CAD application. From what I can see, AutoDesk saw the risk and has inserted themselves with "fun and easy" web based and cloud apps.

[gaius]

How do you mean danger?? The body of the article is considerably less hysterical than the title.

[alok-g]

Many EULAs explicitly include a clause stating that the vendor does not hold any rights over the output of the program. (A common example is when you use a compiler to create a binary. Read what the license says.)

IANAL.

[macmac]

And many do not. I have negotiated software licenses for 15+ years and had to fix this issues many times. Just as many software licenses explicitly only license object code, but the licensed product turns out to contain quite a bit of source code, which if not addressed the licensee is not allowed to use (copy).

[bonzini]

If you pirate the software, you certainly aren't agreeing to any EULA. It's actually an interesting case, more than you could think as a first impression.

[karmicthreat]

Defendant in this case probably knows and purposely uses Chinese contractors to get around licensing expensive software. So not exactly someone to cheer for. But plaintiff also wants to set a pretty bad precedent.

[mortdeus]

That's nonesense. This is like somebody claiming they own copyright on your book or code because you used their text editor.

[guitarbill]

It's not quite that. If the output of the program was a standard text file, then no, because nothing of the program was copied. If for example the output of the program included certain fonts or graphics (e.g. PDF), those are still copyrighted. To use those fonts, you'd need a licence, in this case the same licence you need for the program.

[danjoc]

Ah, so you're familiar with iBooks then ;)

http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-a...

[joelthelion]

Software vendor loses all of its customers.

[braum]

Why not argue that because the external contractors in china are using an illegal copy, therefore there is no client that paid a license to use the software, and that DDC (software maker) should be able to assume the copyright of the output because they are the only viable and legal copyright holder of the software in use. AND therefore the only one with a valid license of the software and its output.

[crooked-v]

> A. DDC (software maker) should be able to assume the copyright of the output

> B. they are the only viable and legal copyright holder of the software in use

B does not imply A. You're trying to invent something here that doesn't exist.

[Rzah]

If I steal a pen and write a poem with it I still hold copyright over the poem, how the poem was transcribed has no bearing on copyright.

[macmac]

One of the judges actually start by disabusing DDC's counsel of the notion that one has anything to do with the other. You don't get to invent a new legal concept just because someone allegedly pirated your software.

[LeicaLatte]

Nintendo has a similar take on its software. It claims rights on the game footage uploaded to youtube by users.

[njharman]

That makes more sense as they own the art assets that are being displayed in video.

[std_throwaway]

So, does that make them responsible for the things done with their software?

[jwilk]

From the Hacker News Guidelines[0]:

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Animats]

The company is accused of pirating the software. If they had it lawfully, they wouldn't be in this fix. The question here is whether the program outputs from a pirated program are free of copyright restrictions.

[icebraining]

No, the fact that they "pirated" the software is a separate claim, since the output files were not produced by their copy of the software. They would be in this fix even if they had never "pirated" it.

[dba7dba]

So if I wrote a novel using Microsoft Word, Microsoft has the copyright to the novel?

[blhack]

Software vendor is wrong.