5 ms·

Copying the question text verbatim certainly is copyright infringement (and I would guess unlikely to be fair use, but I'm not a lawyer). If you give the proble

Copying the question text verbatim certainly is copyright infringement (and I would guess unlikely to be fair use, but I'm not a lawyer). If you give the problem in your own words, it won't be, just like your solution isn't.

TheJoeMan 5y ago
Chegg seems to have sorted this out with textbook questions?
- captn3m0 5y ago
  They license it I think.
moeris 5y ago
That's not how copyright works. Simply rewording each question will still violate copyright when you're copying all of the questions. I couldn't just reword Harry Potter and republish all of the novels. Likewise, copying some small portion may fall under fair use.
- checkyoursudo 5y ago
  That is how copyright works. I believe you are thinking of plagiarism, which isn't the same thing.
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  On the contrary, I’m fairly sure you could do that with the Harry Potter books. What jurisdiction are you in?
  - TheNewsIsHere 5y ago
    I believe (and I’m not a legal expert here), that what the commenter is alluding to is the “moral rights” over a work. This is more common in the UK and Canada. When I worked for a Canadian company (I’m a U.S. American) part of our IP release for works-for-hire included a waiver/transfer of rights specifically for the “moral” or “authors” rights, which were explained as being the “spirit” or “whole” of works we created. It’s a legal construct, but I was never satisfied with that explanation. The gist was that while we could transform things that we learned or did, we could not re-use the ideas that formed the functioning product in other works elsewhere, even by transformation.
    - mananaysiempre 5y ago
      Doesn’t the Berne convention specifically make moral rights inalienable? The whole point being that you may transfer redistribution rights, etc. to somebody else, but they still don’t get to (affirmatively) claim they wrote it (thus can’t even try to pressure you to allow it)? Am I misunderstanding or is the local (and likely original) definition of “moral rights” different from the one in the convention?
rectang 5y ago
Giving the problem "in your own words" raises the question of whether or not your restatement constitutes a derivative work. From the 1976 Copyright Act section 101: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 > A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

TheJoeMan 5y ago

Chegg seems to have sorted this out with textbook questions?

captn3m0 5y ago
They license it I think.

moeris 5y ago

That's not how copyright works. Simply rewording each question will still violate copyright when you're copying all of the questions. I couldn't just reword Harry Potter and republish all of the novels. Likewise, copying some small portion may fall under fair use.

checkyoursudo 5y ago
That is how copyright works. I believe you are thinking of plagiarism, which isn't the same thing.
Cederfjard 5y ago
On the contrary, I’m fairly sure you could do that with the Harry Potter books. What jurisdiction are you in?
- TheNewsIsHere 5y ago
  I believe (and I’m not a legal expert here), that what the commenter is alluding to is the “moral rights” over a work. This is more common in the UK and Canada. When I worked for a Canadian company (I’m a U.S. American) part of our IP release for works-for-hire included a waiver/transfer of rights specifically for the “moral” or “authors” rights, which were explained as being the “spirit” or “whole” of works we created. It’s a legal construct, but I was never satisfied with that explanation. The gist was that while we could transform things that we learned or did, we could not re-use the ideas that formed the functioning product in other works elsewhere, even by transformation.
  - mananaysiempre 5y ago
    Doesn’t the Berne convention specifically make moral rights inalienable? The whole point being that you may transfer redistribution rights, etc. to somebody else, but they still don’t get to (affirmatively) claim they wrote it (thus can’t even try to pressure you to allow it)? Am I misunderstanding or is the local (and likely original) definition of “moral rights” different from the one in the convention?

rectang 5y ago

Giving the problem "in your own words" raises the question of whether or not your restatement constitutes a derivative work. From the 1976 Copyright Act section 101: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 > A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".