[Rick Masters]

Totally agree.
Blanket copyright warnings are just a common method of pushing people into self-intimidation mode.
Imagine if Henry Ford had copyrighted how to drive a car and sued the other auto companies for infringement.
Do you think they would have picked up their cookies and gone home?
There are not many ways to say "Step on the brake pedal to stop."
Takling about this ad-infinitum is evidence of self-intimidation.

[JoeF]

Thanks, Scott. I am in agreement that systems and procedures for generic activity are not copyrightable; however, the creative text per se would be copyrightable; if one wants to write up one's own expression to express a system or procedure for a generic activity, then the new write-up would belong to the author.

Here is how to peel an apple: Txxxxxxxxtxxxxxxtxx. Then texxxt. Then xxxxt. Aha! Then xxxtsst.

Now the exact creative text embodied in a document entirety forms an authored work; the creative body of text is coyrightable.
Another author with a creative pen with wordsmith skills may form another document on the system and procedure of peeling an apple. The new effort with its creative bends and turns supplies the same system and procedure, but is creatively phrased by the new author; that new author can copyright his work.
The system and procedure may be the same or very similar.

Just copying the creative document of another is unfair.

One found quote:

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.

Almost none of the ideas, concepts, methods, systems, etc. in H-1, H-2, etc. of the various nations' HG rating documents are copyrightable, BUT THE EXACT PHRASING TOTALITY IN A WORKED-UP DOCUMENT forms a creative work that is copyrightable; the creative labors form an investment belonging to the authors and artists. But the common ideas, systems (ideas that work to do something), and procedures (steps to accomplish something) are not copyrightable and CAN BE CREATIVELY PHRASED BY A CREATIVE NEW AUTHOR WITHOUT COPYING THE CREATIVE TEXT OF ANOTHER AUTHOR OR ARTIST. One cannot fairly just grab the creative works of others; but one can fairly grab the common generic ideas, systems, and procedures. My H-1 effort recently is generally similar to H-1 as to ideas, steps, procedures, but none of my phrasing is copying another org's effort. I place my creative text into public domain; anyone may copy my phrases; here I give permission for such on the H-1 material and other H-# material presented in USHawks forum; free. But when an org forms a document of creative text and copyrights that flow of creative text, then such is copyrighted; no one may fairly simply COPY that exact body of text and fold it into their material. Fair use is for snippet non-constructive-whole COMMENTARY and critique or for credited education. Unfair use is to take the creative WHOLENESS or near wholeness and slap on one's own AUTHORSHIP. No. Rather, for the common ideas, systems, and procedures we need to compose our own creative phrasing; we easily can form a system and procedure for H-1, etc. that has history, links, links to accidents, links to photos, creative expansive commentary; we can write up a creative more valuable H-1; we can have expressions of variations, discussion notes, references, etc. We may add photos and diagrams. Our documents may be creatively more valuable, different in sentences, but hold the essential common generic ideas, steps, skills, actions, procedures. No HG org owns the ideas involved or steps involved to show a skill level, etc. But an author (or corporate author) may own copyright on their worked-up creative expression.As Rick noted, some final expressions might be identical for short parts; but the creative aspects of a document form a totality that cannot fairly be copied. We need to work up our own creative totality; if we express that our work is placed in public domain, then anyone may slap their name on the creative documents we produce and call it their own; will we copyright our effort or not?

Code: Select all

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

[Bill Cummings]

Would it settle things if we sent one of the links to the copyright office that takes one to the text we are talking about and ask if it is copyrightable like it says at the end or not?

[wingspan33]

Would it settle things if we sent one of the links to the copyright office that takes one to the text we are talking about and ask if it is copyrightable like it says at the end or not?

Bill we could do that but it is likely that the US Copyright Office would respond with "We can't give you legal advice.". But what would it hurt to try? But mailing them a copy of the U$hPa Rating System might be better.

And for Joe, . . .

Rick said it very simply. What if Henry Ford had copyrighted "How to Drive A Car"? There are a set of procedures involved in driving a car that (so far) have remained the same.* A "system" for teaching how to drive a car has never been copyrighted, because it can not be. I expect that there are lots of "Driving Manuals" out there, that are probably copyrighted, but they would be more like the Peter Cheney book I've described then like, "Step 1 - We will learn what the brake is for. Step 2 , . . ."

I would also add that if a "system" and/or "procedure" is not copyrightable - But it ALSO is not a written work, then what is it? The Copyright office would say nothing about "systems" and "procedures" if all they were composed of were thoughts in someone's imagination. The copyright office addresses the issue of "systems" and "procedures" specifically because they take written form - so they may be better communicated and understood. The US Copyright Office would make no statements about "systems" and "procedures" not being copyrightable if all they ever were were ideas/concepts/words spoken between two (or more?) people.

I would also add that it has been mentioned that, "What if all you are doing is issuing a rating to a pilot, not teaching them or educating them, because they already know the stuff?". Well, that issued rating will educate anyone that wants to see it as to the pilot's qualifications to fly any new site. Teaching the steps toward a rating, as well as the finally issued rating, are both meant to result in educational goals.

I too am getting tired of discussing this (I believe, non) issue. I would agree with Rick's ad-infinitum comment, and in my case, would describe it as going on ad nauseam.

But then, I always like a good discussion. Tends to demonstrate our efforts toward achieving due diligence.

*Of course cars that apply their own brakes, or park, or drive themselves are altering that reality.

[JoeF]

Bill,
I think the courts would decide a particular case, not the office that files formal copyright applications.

Summary: Write and publish an original descriptive expression of what is needed by a pilot to wear an H-1-nR, H-2,H-3, H-4.
That particular creative descriptive work may be copyrighted or placed into public domain.
However, such does not stop someone else from composing a creative descriptive work holding equivalent procedures or skill sets or systems of operation which published descriptive work could be also copyrighted. Printed and published composed literary works holding the sweat and educational background and writing skills of an author result in a one-of-a-kind composition; the ideas, systems, and procedures embedded in the work are not copyrightable, but the unique printed composition with peculiar twists and turns creatively placed is copyrightable.

================
The Driving Book : Everything New Drivers Need to Know but Don't Know to Ask
by Karen Gravelle
================ Copying the text of her book and publishing under your own name and selling it could cost infringement damages if a permit was not granted by the publisher of that book.

==============

Found this:

Copyright law protects the expression of facts and ideas, not the ideas and facts themselves. Works that have not been fixed to a tangible medium are just ideas. Ideas are fair game for everyone to express in their own words.

My bolding.

=======================================
Court cases are probably easy to find on the topic.

==================================

So, sift the ideas that form an H-1 HG pilot. Then express those ideas in an original composition with creative clear composition and maybe with enhancements; own such result in copyright or give such expression to Public Domain.

[Bob Kuczewski]

We all know the expression sometimes heard on launch:

    "Looks good ... you go first."

Everyone who's advocating that we have an absolute, God given, constitutionally protected right to copy USHPA's documents has failed to take the simple steps to just do it themselves.

You all know where you can find a copy. You all know how to set up a free web site or to post somewhere on the internet (other than ushawks.org). And you all know how to send an email to USHPA informing them that you've done so in direct defiance and in the greater intersts of hang gliding and free speech and motherhood and apple pie.

Yet no one has done so. Instead, you're all standing around trying to tell us (and me) to "go first".

If you're so convinced that it "looks good", then why don't you go first? Lead by example. Blaze a new trail. Show us the way. If you're right, you'll be another "Hero Hawk" and I'll be very publicly thankful. I'll say I was wrong and give you 100 thumbs up smileys ... and I'll mean it (I really will).

But at the present time I'm not convinced.

So let me turn it around: It looks good ... YOU go first!!

[JoeF]

JUSTIA paragraph from page: HERE

Copyrights
Copyright protection is afforded to “original works of authorship.” Copyright protection includes the right to reproduce, the right to create derivative works, the right to distribute, and the right to publicly perform. Contrary to popular perception, copyright protection does not extend to mere ideas, systems, concepts, principles, or discoveries in their abstract forms.

Instead, to be eligible for copyright protection, a work must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression from which it can be communicated either directly or with the help of a device. The medium can be known now, or it can be later developed. Copyrightable works include literature, music, dramas and plays, choreography, pictorial work, graphics and sculptures, motion pictures, sound recordings, and architectural work.

Bolding added.

========================================================

Something to study:

Code: Select all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_divide

and HERE

[Rick Masters]

Joe, it can be argued that the USHPA training materials are built on your original foundational publications.
And argued well, I might add.

[JoeF]

Yes.
However, each edition of documents by the corporation form a creative description that is copyrightable;
yet the ideas involved are not copyrightable; so, we need to write our own creative expression of the ideas.

E.g.
Herein are the skills, attitudes, and knowledge points needed for an H-1-nR pilot:
1...
45...
Submit claim on USHawks H-1-nR form with assent from two seasoned HG mentors/coaches that one has the above
to USHawks; we will review the claim; if accepted, we will publish your H-1-nR rating for all the world to see.
We will publish by name. Self-regulation process allows this method of rating HG pilots.
---------------------------------------

[Frank Colver]

For God's sake keep it simple! We don't want it to be more difficult for someone to get an H-1,2,3 than they could get a license to fly a Cessna out of LAX!

There should be some basic HG demonstrated flight control requirements plus knowledge of the FAR 103 and FAA airspace regs in general and that's all.

Hang gliding is free flight, remember, we ran off hills and learned to fly, we should not regulate the s*** out of it!

Frank