
This maze looks familiar - jozydapozy
http://krazydad.com/blog/2014/07/13/hmm-this-maze-looks-familiar/
======
cloverich
I see literally _thousands_ of mazes generated on the site, and (unless I"m
mistaken) they are all simply generated output from a computer program. Its
cool, but is it even possible to copyright something like this?

~~~
dllthomas
Given that he wrote the program, exercising creativity there, and (I presume)
exercised additional creative activity _manually selecting which outputs to
post_ from the space of generated mazes, it seems likely that it's possible to
copyright something like this. IANAL, though.

~~~
ars
> manually selecting which outputs to post

That is not the law. The actual work must demonstrate creativity, and a
mechanically generated works of this sort do not.

"The U.S. Copyright Office has taken the position that "in order to be
entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human
authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without
any contribution by a human author are not registrable."

~~~
stcredzero
_The actual work must demonstrate creativity, and a mechanically generated
works of this sort do not._

The law here lags behind the technology. By procedurally generating something
like a landscape, a programmer can creatively define a whole set of possible
landscapes. It's fallacious to say that this can't involve artistic awareness
and creativity. Here, the law is trying to apply 19th century models to 21st
century media.

~~~
ars
The program used to generated the landscapes is copyrightable, the landscapes
themself are not.

> It's fallacious to say that this can't involve artistic awareness and
> creativity. Here, the law is trying to apply 19th century models to 21st
> century media.

A problem with copyrighting mechanically generated works is there is no end to
them. What awareness and creativity is shown by letting a computer make 1
million slightly different images?

All the creativity is in the programming, not in the result.

~~~
stcredzero
_The program used to generated the landscapes is copyrightable, the landscapes
themself are not._

But this is problematic. Procedurally generated landscapes can still have a
definite "feel" or "look." These attributes can be protected as "trade dress."
But there is no way to preclude other attributes we haven't thought of yet.

 _A problem with copyrighting mechanically generated works is there is no end
to them. What awareness and creativity is shown by letting a computer make 1
million slightly different images?_

Yes, you're right, there are algorithms that actually don't show much
creativity. But this is actually already covered in the "Threshold of
creativity" laws -- if the declaration that the output of an algorithms cannot
be protected is removed. If you apply most of the same "Threshold of
creativity" laws to a notion of meta-creativity, you still arrive at a usable
and coherent law.

 _All the creativity is in the programming, not in the result._

Clearly, the truth is that creativity can manifest in the result.

Also understand that modern technology makes the current formulation of the
law problematic. What if I simply used cheap data storage to slurp the output
of a program so that I could use the output of someone's copyrighted code
without permission? I could imagine doing this to a procedurally generated MMO
world. This would seem to make the practical effect of the law quite divergent
from its intended effect. Introduce a notion of algorithmic meta-creativity,
and the law would protect against that kind of infringement nicely.

That said, in many cases, it would be advisable for the copyright holder to
_not_ reserve copyrights for such media. But in that case, I think the
providing the option is the wiser choice.

~~~
ars
> These attributes can be protected as "trade dress."

That's trademark, not copyright.

If you carefully tuned your program to create a single result you found best
that might be copyrightable.

On the other hand if you wrote a generic program that randomly adjusts the
variables to make lots of nice looking landscapes then the landscapes are not
copyrightable, even if you did a great job on the program so all the results
were beautiful.

> Clearly, the truth is that creativity can manifest in the result.

That doesn't make it copyrightable. I could plant trees in a beautiful
pattern, but I can not claim copyright on photographs taken of the result.

> What if I simply used cheap data storage to slurp the output of a program so
> that I could use the output of someone's copyrighted code without
> permission?

Not following. Does "cheap data storage" make a difference? How are you
"slurping" the output? What sort of program is it?

> I could imagine doing this to a procedurally generated MMO world. This would
> seem to make the practical effect of the law quite divergent from its
> intended effect.

And what's the problem? The procedurally generated MMO world is not
copyrightable. That's the intended effect - to only copyright what a person
actually does.

You might be able to claim a dress trademark on the MMO world if it was
distinct, but not copyright.

~~~
stcredzero
_That 's trademark, not copyright._

I never said it was copyright. Please readjust your mental model of who you're
speaking to accordingly.

 _If you carefully tuned your program to create a single result you found best
that might be copyrightable._

How is this different than carefully tuning your program to create a range of
results with specific attributes? Example: All of the generated landscapes are
aesthetically pleasing, but have enough open area next to obstacles to enable
ambushes and also manage to look creepy at night... Such a result might indeed
take

 _That doesn 't make it copyrightable._

I'm saying that it should. IP laws date from a time where the kind of
automation that makes the above possible was unthinkable. The assumption that
an act of creation would result in a particular set of data is no longer
warranted. Neither is the assumption that the automatic production of art is
either not possible or would result in uninteresting and stereotypical output.

 _Not following. Does "cheap data storage" make a difference? How are you
"slurping" the output? What sort of program is it?_

Specifics aren't needed, but "cheap data storage" makes it possible to store
the entire content of certain procedurally generated algorithms from earlier
computer systems as files of ordinary size on today's typical machines.
(Example: The entire Elite universe.)

 _And what 's the problem? The procedurally generated MMO world is not
copyrightable. That's the intended effect - to only copyright what a person
actually does._

I'm saying that this very notion dates from a time when procedurally generated
output was unimaginable to most people, and that to only copyright what a
person actually does is trying to apply 19th century notions to 21st century
technology. It's just like the early 20th century arguments for airlines
having to pay farmers to overfly their land.

~~~
ars
You still hit the problem that it's possible to make a program that can output
every possible permutation of every possible song. Saved as midi files you
could actually realistically do that for short songs.

How can you extend copyright to include such a thing? Presumably you don't
want to - but it on you to somehow distinguish between them.

Also, pre-computer automation was not as impossible as you might think, some
examples: A double pendulum with a pen, a spirograph, a sand bucket on a rope,
a spinning top with paint.

And see this reply from someone else:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8032980](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8032980)
\- generated artwork has existed before computers, and it is not
copyrightable.

I have not completely decided if I would agree with your proposal or not, you
would need to be much more specific about the limits of where copyright would
not apply. Because as broad as you make it sound I would not agree, but if
more limited then maybe.

~~~
stcredzero
_You still hit the problem that it 's possible to make a program that can
output every possible permutation of every possible song. Saved as midi files
you could actually realistically do that for short songs._

 _How can you extend copyright to include such a thing?_

Simple, you wouldn't. Yes, but this is already covered in the concept of
sufficient creativity.

 _Also, pre-computer automation was not as impossible as you might think, some
examples: A double pendulum with a pen, a spirograph, a sand bucket on a rope,
a spinning top with paint._

Also covered by "sufficient creativity" for trivial combinations of such
machines. Now, if it was a system which balanced the spirographs and double
pendulums in a tangible and describable way as to produce a finely balanced
effect.

 _And see this reply from someone else... generated artwork has existed before
computers, and it is not copyrightable._

Yes, but the degree of automation we have today completely changes the
technological landscape in such a profound way, that anyone should be
skeptical if such laws still apply.

 _I have not completely decided if I would agree with your proposal or not,
you would need to be much more specific about the limits of where copyright
would not apply._

Common sense and the market could resolve a lot of the potential problems you
see. What use is a tool like a spirograph if you can't use the output freely?
Tools with restrictive stipulations will eliminate themselves from the
marketplace.

Things like a program that simply enumerates all 32x32 pixel images are
transparent enough that a judge should be able to adjudicate properly. I can
see, however, that there would be more complex cases, and the cost to society
may not be worth the potential damage IP meta-squatters would incur.

------
bshimmin
Reminds me of Roger Penrose and toilet paper plagiarism:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20050312084035/http://www.parasco...](http://web.archive.org/web/20050312084035/http://www.parascope.com/articles/slips/fs_151.htm)

~~~
JetSpiegel
This deserves a submission.

> "So often we read of very large companies riding rough-shod over small
> businesses or individuals," said David Bradley, director of Pentaplex. "But
> when it comes to the population of Great Britain being invited by a multi-
> national to wipe their bottoms on what appears to be the work of a Knight of
> the Realm without his permission, then a last stand must be made."

~~~
krazydad
[This is Jim Bumgardner - author of the maze that Kraft copied]. Amusingly,
this comes full circle. One of the puzzle varieties on my site is based on
Penrose tilings.

[http://krazydad.com/slitherlink/sfiles/sl_penrose_b001.pdf](http://krazydad.com/slitherlink/sfiles/sl_penrose_b001.pdf)

Years ago, I sought (and received) permission from Penrose to use his tiling
on these puzzles.

~~~
GhotiFish
hey! That's loopy! From the Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection.

Play it here:
[http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/js/loopy...](http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/js/loopy.html)

You can play penrose style puzzles by selecting the type in the furthest right
drop down menu.

(beware, select custom and choose easy mode, becuase hard mode is _hard_ )

------
ZoF
Heh,that poor miserable employee who probably thought nothing of copying a
cool maze off the Internet.(Not to imply that makes it any less illegal)

That's certainly got to be interesting/validating for the op though (albeit
simultaneously violating/annoying).

Definitely curious to hear how Kraft responds; if op is willing to share even
more about something he shouldn't have had to deal with in the first place
that is.

~~~
dspillett
_> who probably thought nothing of_

Working for a media related company or similar he will have been told not to
do that sort of thing, officially at least (it'll be in the company handbook
which he'll have signed a document stating he has read and understood) - so
yes if he is still there he'll get some of the fallout.

The company should have checks and balances on such things though, so they
can't blame a sole individual and wash their hands of it without recall of the
item and/or recompense to the creator they've copied.

~~~
jonnathanson
Yes. More than one person's hands at the company are almost assuredly dirty
here. Maybe not directly, but indirectly.

No consumer packaged goods company, least of all a giant like Kraft, puts
_anything_ onto a box without many layers of approval and rounds of creative
review. In this case, the buck presumably stops with the brand manager for the
Mac & Cheese product. I doubt he or she would have even thought to ask about
the IP origins of the maze when conducting creative review. Nevertheless, he
or she bears some responsibility as the owner of the review process.

Most likely this maze was lifted and passed off as original by someone a bit
lower down the food chain: an agency staffer, a freelance designer, or an
artist at the company. But there is virtually no scenario in which that
person's contribution wasn't reviewed a half-dozen times by people with
managerial authority. At CPG companies, the package is an incredibly important
and borderline sacred thing. Nothing gets onto the package by accident, and as
such, it would be incredibly difficult for Kraft to argue its way out of
responsibility.

Another possibility is that Nickelodeon (the owner of Spongebob) provided the
artwork, including the maze, to Kraft. This makes identifying the proximately
responsible party a bit trickier, but Kraft still bears a burden. It would
also mean that _two_ companies, and possibly two brand managers, had eyes on
this.

~~~
danielweber
As you say, it could be some freelance designer or artist whom they
commissioned make the maze, and that artist committed fraud against both their
customer and the real producer by passing KrazyDad's work off as his own. The
company can't really double-check against out-and-out fraud. (I still think
they should have financial responsibility, paying the real artist what they
paid the supposed artist, even if they are morally off the hook.)

~~~
jonnathanson
IANAL, and I can't really say whether a court would hold them to have been
reasonably responsible for vetting this in their review process. But I do know
their review process exists, and that it's very extensive, and that a court
would probably not be inclined to give them a pass for ignorance -- even if
they had no idea. Even if a freelancer committed fraud against them in passing
this off as his own, they are economic beneficiaries of the artwork. So I
don't think (?) they'd get a pass. (Would actually welcome a lawyer's input on
this thread w/r/t that scenario. EDIT: A lawyer has joined in.)

Whatever the case may be, Kraft should do the right thing here. That probably
means paying KrazyDad a fee or royalty of some kind, commensurate with the
standard that they'd pay a typical artist whose original work graced their
package. They should also issue a formal apology and pledge to improve their
review process.

If Nickelodeon / MTV Networks was also involved, things get messier, and maybe
there's a he-said, she-said dynamic that plays out. In any event, none of
these folks are dummies. I sincerely hope, and would even expect, that they'll
contact KrazyDad to make remedy.

------
chton
Hypothetical question: is it possible that they did not copy it? The author
here indicates that the original maze was generated by software, maybe Kraft
stumbled upon the same algorithm, or a close variation of it (considering the
minor differences between the two)?

Obviously, this is very out-of-left-field and I don't believe it either, but
it's not impossible that Kraft didn't plagiarise anything.

~~~
mkesper
Under some jurisdictions (eg Germany), I'm not sure whether the output of a
program is copyrightable at all. Your software, yes, but probably not the
output.

~~~
dbaupp
What about if the program takes a variety of inputs which influence the
output? (At some point there has to be a transition, since e.g. books are
"just" the output of some program.)

~~~
kd0amg
For any book, there exists some program which generates it, but most books are
not created that way (so we consider those books to be products of human
creativity).

~~~
dbaupp
I was talking about the word processor/text editor, since the things created
by them are still just the output of some program (with heavy human influence
along the way).

------
phy6
At what point do a series of angled lines become copywritable? After two
lines? Three? Can I copywrite two lines meeting at 67 degrees, and then claim
angles 65-69 as like works? Can I then claim that your maze contains my
intellectual property in several places? (And would you still feel your rights
were violated had kraft taken two of your mazes and glued them together?)

~~~
icebraining
s/copywrite/copy _right_ /

With regard to your question, it depends on whether it passes the Threshold of
Originality:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality)

------
jordigh
Sure, copyright infringement, plagiarism, but not theft! Copying is not theft!
We need to hear this more often.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ)

~~~
DanielStraight
We really don't. I hope you don't sincerely believe your fellow HNers are
stupid enough to think that copying an artistic artifact somehow removes it
from the possession of the original creator. We aren't and we don't. Which
means this is just a matter of word choice. I can't think of much I'm less
interested in reading than "You used this word in a way I don't agree with."

Besides, this usage of "theft" is not dissimilar from the already well
established usage of "stole" as in "he stole my idea." If an idea can be
stolen, it can certainly be theft to take the product of an idea, at least
colloquially.

~~~
jordigh
Of course it's a common usage, but that alone shouldn't make it acceptable
usage. Lots of disparaging language is common usage. When you use a word with
a certain intent, it's the usage of that word with that specific intent that
should be questioned.

I think we should all be grownup enough to recognise that ideas can't really
be stolen either. We also recognise the value of copying ideas. If we
recognise these things, then we should use corresponding language to reflect
our intent.

------
mcherm
Notice how he pointed out that it is copied in clear violation of copyright
law. Then he did NOT follow this up with a cease-and-desist letter, or a
threat of legal action. Classy.

Now I hope that Craft is classy in return, by contacting him and negotiating
in good faith a reasonable fee for the use of the maze.

~~~
nmjohn
If he didn't contact Kraft how would they ever be made aware of it? It's not
like there was a giant company meeting where the CEO said "This guy. I want
you to steal his maze design and put it on our mac and cheese."

It was 1 designer tasked with putting a maze on it that did a google image
search and came up with that result.

That by no means exonerates Kraft, but it can be helpful to put things in
perspective sometimes. I would be willing to give them the benefit of the
doubt, that if someone in a position to actually do something about it was
made aware that they had mass produced copyrighted materials, they would be
willing to offer a reasonable fee. However actually getting in touch with that
person may be challenging without legal action.

~~~
mcherm
Oh, I'm not knocking Kraft for being unaware of the problem before the blog
post, I'm just hoping they'll be classy about how they handle it AFTER it has
been discovered.

------
thirdusername
Without making a judgement on weather or not it is or should be legal, it's
sadly common to plagiarize or outright copy without conscience amongst
marketeers, especially the smaller firms.

I have conversations with (often the same) marketeers that they need to
purchase the $9-99 font they've used in their design on almost every project.
They send me copy often verbatim copied from the website they are "taking
inspiration from". There is unsurprisingly little integrity in the industry.
Bigger firms is sometimes slightly better since they have lawyers cracking
down on this kind of behavior.

Source: I work for a software consultancy that primarily work with marketing
firms.

------
ejr
We seem to have killed the site.

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:krazyd...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:krazydad.com/blog/2014/07/13/hmm-
this-maze-looks-familiar/)

------
rrss1122
I tried looking on the linked mazes page for a license, the closest thing (in
my opinon) was a statement to feel free to reproduce for personal, school, and
church use. I figure if I couldn't find the copyright notice, it's probably
hard for someone at Kraft to find it too (unless that statement IS the
copyright notice).

Does this necessarily exclude a for-profit use, or does that have to be
explicitly declared? IANAL, so I'd like to know.

~~~
dllthomas
This seems a good example of the actual original meaning of "the exception
proves the rule". The fact that he specifically states an intent for it to be
free in those cases implies that he does not intend for it to be free more
generally.

Coupled with the fact that you automatically have copyright on copyrightable
works, and that by default you need license to copy copyrighted works outside
fair use and similar exceptions, I think it's clear that _if_ these mazes are
copyrightable and _if_ the maze wasn't independently generated (both of which
seem more probable than not), then Kraft owes him some money here.

------
DanBC
What's the offline DMCA workflow? Send an invoice for a reasonable amount,
then sue if they don't pay?

~~~
logicallee
Pick up the phone and call around until you find out what their limits are
before some approval is needed, you can probably even explain what happened,
and that you just want to invoice in an amount that can be approved, then just
submit an invoice for under that amount, with a note that upon payment you
will give a one-time license for the already-printed kraft boxes.

------
Yimgo
How he dealt with the design agency is quite selfless and ended up with $4K in
donations for local food banks.

[http://krazydad.com/blog/2014/07/18/about-that-mac-cheese-
ma...](http://krazydad.com/blog/2014/07/18/about-that-mac-cheese-maze/)

------
woutersf
Did you contact them?

~~~
yawz
I'm sure his lawyer did.

------
pyb
Notice how they removed a couple of walls and made it 5x easier than the
original.

~~~
triangleman
I think they actually added a wall and made it harder.

~~~
pyb
Ah yes, you're right

------
innguest
Please do unto them what they would have done unto you. Not only do you stand
to make some money but you'll be helping correct a bad behavior.

~~~
ars
It's not that simple. It's not clear that the maze is copyrightable in the
first place.

I doubt he has the resources to fight it if they choose to fight. He would
basically be hoping they would give him a settlement just to make him go away.

Filing a lawsuit just to get a settlement when you can't actually fight on the
merits is not considered positive behavior (although it can be lucrative).

~~~
dllthomas
_" Filing a lawsuit just to get a settlement when you can't actually fight on
the merits is not considered positive behavior (although it can be
lucrative)."_

If you can't actually fight it on its merits because the facts and law don't
back you up, I whole heartedly agree. If you can't actually fight it on its
merits only because you don't have the resources to do so, it's more
questionable.

------
dspillett
_> If you’re gonna steal a maze, you might want to try stealing from maze book
#47, and do a horizontal swap on it before you rotate it 90 degrees. That’ll
slow me down some…_

And now the next maze to be copied by someone will be that one, and they'll
argue that this statement is permission!

