Protecting an Idea Predicated on a Novel Software Process Before I begin, I'm a software engineer, so am not especially in-the-know about what I'm seeking to do beyond the software side of things. In brief: I would like to pitch an idea leveraging a novel software process to a potential client to purchase or license. What methods could I consider to protect that idea and process? In detail: What I would like to do is to pitch a show to an online streaming video vendor, for example, Netflix. Such a show's success would be predicated on the use of a particular software technology to help create the show. The idea would be to use the technology to bring a new spin to the show's concept, which is not a new one. The show's concept is not novel (but equally, not protected), however executing such a show using such technology would be novel, as best as I can tell from my research. I have thus-far not found prior art for such an idea executed with this technology. The use of the technology would be required for the show to exist in the configuration suggested in this proposal. Elaborating, to create the show, a software suite would have to be prepared which would be bespoke for the show, and this would leverage some open source technologies and some licensed technologies to work. By this logic, such software could be said to be a crucial process by which the show would be produced, and I suppose such a software process could be said to be novel also, although the steps involved in the process would not be novel by themselves. If I was to use a real world parallel that I think is similar, if you were to imagine that video editing software didn't exist, it would be pitching a show and a software package like Windows Movie Maker to make the show, and seeking to protect the idea of your movie maker software package as part of that pitch. The merits of pitching such a show aside, what methods could I use to protect my ideas such that Netflix or other vendors can't just turn me down, hire a software team and pursue the concept on their own? For legal reference, I reside in Australia, but would appreciate US and other perspectives all the same. Thanks for your time. My research: I've seen: How to protect an idea when you don&#39;t own the brand or the process? (UK) and it was not particularly reassuring, although I am asking as a novel software process is a little more sophisticated than logos on pint glasses, and am curious as to how more conventional shows get pitched to media companies without them running off with the ideas as that can be, I imagine in some cases, a risk. I've also seen: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/11386/14997 and am curious as to which nominated methods of protection it would be worth directing me towards, if any. Based on the first answer here: Does copyrighted code protect intellectual property rights on novel algorithms it implements? I conclude that I'm not protected by copyright, I don't think.
Your answer (in the US) is the same as feetwet's answer to the earlier question you linked: Is it possible to protect a business idea? - Law Stack Exchange. You can't copyright an idea for software. You can't copyright an idea for a pitch of a TV show or an episode of an existing TV show (Google "copyright TV series idea"). You can't copyright a combination of ideas for a TV show, i.e., one that uses software as the plot line or in the screenwriting or taping process. Once you do the work - develop software or write a script - you have legal protection (which varies, depending on jurisdictions). You can copyright the software you have developed. You can copyright (or commonly register) the TV script you have written. Or, in the US and other jurisdictions, your work is copyrighted as soon as you produce it.
First I should point out that the Google question is about a different situation, the "snippet" issue where a tiny part of a web page is redistributed, where the issue of resolved in the US by appeal to the "fair use" defense. The proposed scenario as written here is broader since it would go beyond a couple of lines, and goes up to the limit of copy an entire web page. That is copyright infringement, with or without an associated link. Copyright protection is not just about attribution, it is about control. If you can limit your copying appropriately, you may survive under a fair use analysis; but you need to hire a lawyer with experience in copyright litigation to vet your notions of what is "a small amount" etc.
If you change a single character, that's clearly a partial copy. Copyright protection has a limited extent, however. The protected work must be original and not obvious. For example, there are only so many ways to write a function that computes the average of two numbers, so the copyright owner of one body of code cannot claim infringement by the author of a second body of code simply because they both have a function float Average(float a, float b) { return (a + b) / 2; } A surefire way to avoid infringing copyright is to specify the function of the code and then have someone who has never seen the code write it from scratch. This is sometimes called clean-room engineering. Otherwise, there is no way to answer your question definitively. If you create a modified copy of the code (a "derived work" in copyright terminology), there is no strict formula available to evaluate the extent of the infringement. It comes down to a case-specific analysis of the facts by a judge. Depending on the jurisdiction, which you have not specified, there may be specific laws or judicial precedent that guide the judge, but the determination will still require a specific analysis of the facts. For example, if the alleged infringer raises these arguments, the judge would have to determine how obvious the code is, or whether the copyright claimant even owns the copyright to the code.
Yep, you are. You still need to keep the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the repository, if there were any in your copy of the project. These files contain the terms and conditions for the project, and provide attribution to the original developers. If you're trying to attribute in the UI of your application, you probably should. It's considered courteous and in the spirit of open source as well. This is also related: Do I need to include the full text of the MIT license in the UI of my app?
If you develop a program yourself and it wasn't a work made for hire, then the program is yours to do with as you please. You hold the copyright to it. Many developers choose existing licencing arrangements or they can choose to create a license on their own, or using an attorney. And sometimes they choose to release their programs into the public domain. If you release it into the public domain, you are essentially giving up your copyright. The IDE (Integrated Development Environment) you used to develop your program does not dictate what licenses you can use. There are some existing licenses that others use (which you are free to use or NOT to use) give varying protections to you regarding what you are allowing others to do; right of others to copy, right of others to modify, right of others to distribute, rights to sub-licence, and so on. One of the licensing schemes is the GNU General Public License (GPL). But there are many others, too many to list here.
You may have issues if you take their content wholesale. Even if they freely distribute them, they still retain copyright. As such, they absolutely can claim copyright. Whether they will or not is another question. Your best bet around this is Fair Use doctrine. You can take a part of their work (e.g: a single question) and do your video based on how you work out your answer, with your video mainly focusing on the 'working out' part (thus satisfying the 'educational purposes' part)
Recall the basic principle of copyright law, as detailed in 17 USC 106: The copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies; prepare derivative works; or distribute copies by sale, rental, lease, or lending. Other people can legally do these things only if they are given permission by the copyright holder, typically via a license. (Remember, the literal meaning of the word license is permission.) Often, the copyright holder will require a prospective licensee to accept various terms and conditions before the license will be granted. If there is &quot;no EULA&quot;, or if there is one but the purchaser has not agreed to its terms, then the purchaser has not been granted any such license, hence does not have permission to do any of the things listed above. If they do so anyway, it is illegal copyright infringement and they will be liable for damages. To use a firewall analogy, copyright law is &quot;default deny&quot;. So let's take your questions one by one: Do they own the software? US law has no concept of literally owning software. The closest thing is owning the copyright, which the purchaser certainly does not. It still belongs to the vendor that wrote the software (or whoever they may have later transferred it to). Can they legally alter the code of the program they purchased? No, that would be preparing a derivative work. The copyright holder has not granted them a license to do that. (There are some exceptions for purposes such as reverse engineering and interoperability, see 17 USC 1201(f)). Can they legally redistribute it No; again, that is the exclusive right of the copyright holder, and the purchaser has not received their permission. or transfer ownership? Maybe, if the first sale doctrine applies. Its application to software is complicated. The user has a better case for being able to sell the software if it exists as some tangible object which is transferred (physical media, pre-installed on hardware, etc). Can they legally modify the code of the program for others who have also purchased the same package? No, that would be preparing a derivative work. Can they take that software and install it on a secondary machine? No, that would be making a copy.
What you are missing is that the original copyright holder can give permission to make derivative works with strings attached. There is no automatic right to derive something from a copyrighted work. Those strings could include constraints on what you create in the process of making the derivative work. Yes it is a string limiting what you can do with something you own, but you would have been warned in the license and had the choice to start from scratch. People do create work-alike software with no copyright strings using two teams and a &quot;clean room&quot; design process. It is a lot harder than modifying something another person has developed. Also, law and someone's understanding of morals need not be aligned at all. And, in patent law, just creating something all by yourself from scratch does not give you ownership. If someone else did it first and got a patent you can't make the item you might think you own. IP law is complex and looking for &quot;fundamentals&quot; may not get you anywhere.