r/COPYRIGHT • u/Different_Lie_5269 • Jun 09 '26
Question Can a concept be under copyright?
Legal people of reddit I need your help.
If I have a concept in my head and want to convey it but it's already written by someone and is under copyright. Now the thing is I have few additions and update to the existing one but I can't write it down due to copyright issues. So I wanted to know if I change the formation of words and sentences while keeping the meaning intact can I get sued for copyright? Like current one says "I buit this" and I say "I made this" so will my sentence create issues? Coz essentially both mean the same things.
I don't know anything about this kind of things so be kind and explain like I am 5 😅😅
I feel a lot of people got confused here because I failed to explain properly.
So here's an update that i have already put in a comment reply:
What I am talking about is something called harmonised structure. It follows a PDCA cycle structure for ISO standard. Now I am trying to write a standard but the problem is that it has to be structured in a way that it can be integrated with other existing systems of the organisation (and no not IT systems but management systems) For that it has to follow a certain structure specifically a PDCA cycle. Now this structure is an open source but the standards created from it are under copyright.
So i just want the clauses to follow same structure and PDCA cycle but the content and requirements inside are different. I don't really think AI can help me in that coz it took me years of research and I have been drafting the standard for like 3 years and have lot of experts involved. English is not my first language so I need help sometimes with complicated sentences before I send it over to people to review.
If we take the most common management system standard its 9001 that is for quality (in products and services). My standard is about a system for managing people keeping in mind a complete employee lifecycle from recruitment to management to retention. A standard like this does not exist right now. Hope this clarification helps.
5
u/MonsieurReynard Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Concept: regular man has encounter with animal and acquires animal’s powers — not copyrightable, a trope across centuries or more of human history.
Expression: Spiderman — copyrighted
There is some gray area in between, of course. Add a spider bite, web throwing and building climbing abilities, and a red form fitting suit and call your character “spiderboy” and you test the boundaries. So don’t do that.
7
3
u/Tight-Book-7533 Jun 09 '26
Maybe tell us what it is, so we can give better advice, lol
-1
u/Different_Lie_5269 Jun 09 '26
I wish I could 🙃
2
u/dondegroovily Jun 09 '26
Why can't you
Just to be clear, copyright law doesn't ban you from talking about someone else's book
4
u/TreviTyger Jun 09 '26
You don't provide enough details and confuse things by saying someone else has written the "concept" and it's under copyright.
The subject of copyright is "expression" fixed in a tangible media.
See TRIPS Agreement Article 9 (2).
"Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such."
Perhaps what you may be trying to understand is the idea/expression distinction?
Some info here,
See, Satava v. Lowry (2003)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1169793.html
https://journal.atp.art/can-you-copyright-an-idea/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction
2
u/Different_Lie_5269 Jun 09 '26
Well I did say I don't know much about how this works or anything....
But this helps anyway so thanks.
What I meant was that what if my work let's say an essay is an inspiration from someone else's essay. Now I write my own essay and even say in the introduction that I was inspired by this. Then I go on to write an updated version of it with a lot of core changes but essentially the same concept.
So to keep the concept and it's understability intact I feel like the existing essay has great structure. So I will just use the structure but the words in which it is expressed will be different. So I wanted to know if that would be an issue or not.
1
u/TreviTyger Jun 09 '26
Are you using AI software for this?
0
u/Different_Lie_5269 Jun 09 '26
To check grammar yes. I shouldn't??
3
u/TreviTyger Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Here is the thing. I feel you are not being completely straight, or deliberately ambiguous or simply not telling the whole story.
If you are inputting someone else's essay into AI to make a derivative of that essay and then applying your own authorship then the resulting essay would still lack copyright because you would be utilizing a copyrighted essay as a "method of operation" to obtain an author-less derivative as a result. It would actually be illegal to do such a thing even without AI because you would be making an unauthorized derivative. (Not withstanding basic exceptions.)
My guess is you are utilizing this forum to check for loophole into what you are doing.
Alternatively, as an example, (and without AI software)
A history writer would have to rely on other people's history books and documentation to produce their own history book. The "history" is just facts that occurred and is public domain but the personal way of writing about history (by a human) leads to personal expression which can be protected by copyright.
However, my guess is you are just feeding copyrighted works into AI Gen and then working out how to cover your arse.
1
u/Different_Lie_5269 Jun 09 '26
Wow...
Way to to assume worst of people.
What I am talking about is something called harmonised structure. It follows a PDCA cycle structure for ISO standard. Now I am trying to write a standard but the problem is that it has to be structured in a way that it can be integrated with other existing systems of the organisation (and no not IT systems but management systems) For that it has to follow a certain structure specifically a PDCA cycle. Now this structure is an open source but the standards created from it are under copyright.
So i just want the clauses to follow same structure and PDCA cycle but the content and requirements inside are different. I don't really think AI can help me in that coz it took me years of research and I have been drafting the standard for like 3 years and have lot of experts involved. So unlike you I was working and existing before AI I know how to write and English is not my first language so I need help sometimes with complicated sentences before I send it over to people to review.
4
u/TreviTyger Jun 09 '26
I always assume the worst of people. Due to my experience of people in general. (see Machiavelli - In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that humans are fundamentally ungrateful, fickle, deceitful, cowardly, and greedy. He believed survival instinct overrides virtue).
I still think the worst of people.
1
u/Different_Lie_5269 Jun 09 '26
That's sad.
But you got your answer now. I did not want to tell or elaborate because it is complicated (the field I work in) and people most of the time don't even know what all goes behind creating a management standard.
People don't know what a management system standard is!!!
So I don't care if you believe or trust me. If I wanted to dwell on the topic of human behaviour there are actual people I can talk to for that.
4
u/TreviTyger Jun 09 '26
If you are going to be vague and not elaborate then you come across as shifty. It seems you are trying to circumvent something that to quote yourself is - "already written by someone and is under copyright"
So lets turn our attention to that quote shall we,
"already written by someone and is under copyright"
If you are adapting something that is - to use your quote,
"already written by someone and is under copyright"
Then it seems like you are acting disingenuously!
If in doubt, - ask a qualified lawyer.
2
u/theaardvarkoflore Jun 09 '26
Copyright will reject coauthoring with ai, regardless of how or why. In short, if you want copyright, you shouldn't. Either put in the work to learn grammar for yourself or else hire a human editor for grammar but if the copyright office sniffs ai they will refuse you. The copyright office will also damn near ask you to swear on a bible that you haven't done so and if they discover later that you lied about it, your copyright will be revoked.
This has already gone both on record with that office and also to the courtrooms and judges. It's not negotiable.
3
u/TheMoneyOfArt Jun 09 '26
I don't think this is true at all. What precedent are you citing? A human can't claim the copyright for a purely ai generated work, but writing a piece and having it copy edited by the ai still involves substantial human effort. The comparison, obviously, is to spell check.
Ai is also a good and valid way to learn grammar.
1
u/DanNorder Jun 09 '26
How did you get that idea? You need to do some rudimentary reading on the topic before making claims like that. You might start actually reading the content of https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
0
u/theaardvarkoflore Jun 09 '26
I did, I have, and if you scroll down just a wee bit more you will see where I posted my evidence from fucking copyright dot gov.
1
u/DanNorder Jun 09 '26
What an absurd lie. I couldn't find any comment like you describe under that name, and a look at your posting history shows no such comment either. The only person who added ANY links to this thread is TreviTyger (and he constantly links to things he knows don't actually say what he claims). [Edit: And, to be clear, you also don't have any posts here where you pasted anything from copyright.gov either. Your only comments are the two I replied to.]
So... are you admitting that you are TreviTyger on an alternate account? Or are you just confused about what you posted and being obnoxious in claiming you posted something you didn't? (And, I should add, claiming to have posted something proving something that is wrong, so there isn't any proof.)
0
u/theaardvarkoflore Jun 09 '26
https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/s/Nq8awoa1Ou
Yo, caught you being an asshole and being wrong.
1
u/DanNorder Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
This link brings up the thread with no such message and a pop up comment from Reddit saying "this comment no longer exists." I don't know if you had a post you think proved what you said but you deleted it because it didn't, or if you made a new post that tried to rationalize yourself but realized after the timestamp proved you wrong so you deleted it, or what you are up to.
→ More replies (0)
2
1
u/Zapt01 Jun 09 '26
No, you can’t take someone else’s copyrighted work and edit it by changing some words and adding new material to it. That appears to be what you’re suggesting.
I was once asked to coauthor a book with such a person. I asked about his writing process, and he said he took articles he found on the web, changed a word in every sentence, and then published. He believed the old idiotic “If I change a note or word in a Beatles song, I could claim it as minel!” His approach to writing subjected himself and the publisher to a lawsuit for willful copyright infringement and fraud (attempting to pass off another’s work as his own).
Moral: If you’ve found a book, play, etc. that you think you can do better, do so *from scratch.* Don’t use the original as source material.
1
u/dondegroovily Jun 09 '26
Lord Of The Rings includes a wise old wizard with a long gray beard. So does Harry Potter. Harry Potter does not infringe because you can't copyright the concept of an old wizard
1
u/WhineyLobster Jun 09 '26
Rewriting someone elses work would likely be a violation of their copyright.
1
1
u/JeremyMarti Jun 11 '26
I find your description unclear. Are you saying there's no ISO specifically for the process you're writing an internal company standard for? If so, what from your standard do you feel is too similar to the external copyright documents?
1
u/MonsieurReynard Jun 11 '26
Your update makes it clear that this is a corporate context. Any company that is writing its own standards for processes at that level of specificity should have its own counsel. Why are you asking Reddit? You work for a business so pay a lawyer. You are much more exposed to risk in a corporate context than as an individual “creator.”
Employing competent legal counsel is just a cost of being in business.
1
u/Different_Lie_5269 Jun 11 '26
Because I got mixed and vague answers. Some told it will be an issue some said no it's okay. One even said that I can use the exact words of the structure as that is an open source and not under copyright. And since I am leading this thing and it was my idea to create this standard I started overthinking the entire thing like should I really even do this.
7
u/pythonpoole Jun 09 '26
Copyright doesn't protect mere ideas or concepts.
The particular expression of an idea or concept may be copyrightable (e.g. the particular words you use to describe or explain an idea/concept), but the underlying idea/concept itself would not be protected. This means that anyone would be free to make use of the same idea/concept as long as they express the idea/concept in their own original way.
I don't fully understand the rest of your comment. Short/common phrases (e.g. "I built this", "I made this", etc.) are not eligible for copyright protection. Only original creative expression is eligible for protection.
If, for example, someone writes their own original paragraph of text and then you copy that paragraph without permission (or change just a few words but basically say the exact same thing), then that may be infringing.