Per said:
Lets not disparage the homeless crackheads outside your office.
I use to be one myself.
Why am I not surprised?
O.K., I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Copyright does not protect creations that are purely functional. That we know. An ordinary four-legged table does not qualify for copyright protection. It doesn't qualify for patent protection either, as these have been in the prior art for centuries.
But the moment you add some element of expression - no matter how minor - you have now created a copyrightable work. The fact that the work remains functional is not an issue. The added creativity pushes the work into the copyright realm. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that there need only be a "
creative spark" to make something copyrightable. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Few people would argue that software is functional. In fact, software is usually patentable. But software is also copyrightable. Why? Because years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the implementation of software code as "expression." Logically, that sounds ridiculous. And I personally have some problems with that reasoning, as it creates a multi-layer IP protection (patent and copyright) for the same thing. But my objections are immaterial. The only thing that matters is the court's holding on the issue. This is fact.
Lotus v. Borland.
Houses and other buildings are considered functional. They are utilitarian in nature. Yet, there is a
special section of copyright law devoted to the protection of architectural works. People like Per can try to argue against it, but the fact remains: these works are copyrightable. If you steal someone's blueprints and build the structure, you can be sued for infringement, and you will likely lose.
You can choose to follow people like Per and pretend that the facts don't apply. People like that will try to argue that the earth is flat. Or they will choose to ignore established facts altogether. But the ostrich principle is never a useful legal strategy. The mere fact that Per is admittedly a former crack user calls his credibility into question. Look at the facts.
People, don't be so gullible.
Cheers,
Kevin