Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities includingStack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Visit Stack ExchangeYEUpdate:We hear. There is an answerURL Rewriter updates (and others outlined above related to url-rewriter-bot that is also relevant here. We will try to remove the) no longer cause new licensed versions or post licensegeneration from bot-related activity. If y'all see more, please add them as comments here.version updates
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
YE:We hear. There is an answer above related to url-rewriter-bot that is also relevant here. We will try to remove the new licensegeneration from bot-related activity. If y'all see more, please add them as comments here.
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
Update:URL Rewriter updates (and others outlined above) no longer cause new licensed versions or post licenseversion updates
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
YE: We hear. There is an answer above related to url-rewriter-bot that is also relevant here. We will try to remove the new license generation from bot-related activity. If y'all see more, please add them as comments here.
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
YE: We hear. There is an answer above related to url-rewriter-bot that is also relevant here. We will try to remove the new license generation from bot-related activity. If y'all see more, please add them as comments here.
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
YE: We hear. There is an answer above related to url-rewriter-bot that is also relevant here. We will try to remove the new license generation from bot-related activity. If y'all see more, please add them as comments here.
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
YE: We hear. There is an answer above related to url-rewriter-bot that is also relevant here. We will try to remove the new license generation from bot-related activity. If y'all see more, please add them as comments here.
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
YE: We hear. There is an answer above related to url-rewriter-bot that is also relevant here. We will try to remove the new license generation from bot-related activity. If y'all see more, please add them as comments here.
Would have posted this as a comment, but I guess it warrants a full answer. IANAL, etc, disclaimer, disclaimer, but: to the best of my understanding, at least under United States copyright law, a "purely mechanical" modification of something (which pretty much by definition includes anything bot-driven, for example) does not create a new copyrightable work.
If I'm wrong about this, it is most likely a confusion with the "sweat of the brow" ruling fromFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, but it definitely seems like territory that warrants a consultation with the legal department if that hasn't already been addressed. If it has, great, but from several of the responses here it doesn't seem like the logic / opinion covering this is well publicized to the community?
