Copyright Heisig

(2016-02-09, 11:56 am)alphador Wrote: Just to report an example, in the eyes of those who threatened to sue me, even the fact of associating a japanese  is copyright material.

If you are sued, it would fall to the Court to determine whether you copied from Heisig's book or not. Not whether what you copied is fact that you COULD HAVE come up with yourself or not.

I could write a book that is filled with obvious facts. I could write a book that just says "Water is wet, wood is dry, shampoo is bubbly, etc., etc.". And, if you write a book in another language filled with those same observations, it's pretty clear that you copied my book.

On the other hand, if you write a book that has ONE or TWO of those observations, but nothing else to do with my book, it's pretty clear that you didn't copy my book.

Sorry to say, but, in this case, it would be pretty clear that the idea of associating "十" with a roman "X" comes from Heisig...because it's not the only similarity. There are also many others. If it was one or two, it could be argued that it's a coincidence. But when it's a bunch, it's pretty obvious that it's not. Even if you didn't own Heisig's book, those of us posting on this site do, and we often shared stories from his book. So, if you used this site, you had access to the contents of his book.

Quote:Furthermore, they claim to have the rights on the "components" (I assume they mean the radicals?): on this matter I was wondering if it is really possible to own the rights on the meaning of a radical, expecially when in some cases (like the radical for water) they are surely not been invented by them.

Same as before: they don't have the "rights on the meaning of A radical". If you just want to use one or two radicals (or even primitives that aren't radicals), and happen to name them the same thing Heisig did, you're fine.

But, clearly, Heisig created that system of components (they aren't radicals, btw., they're called primitives and they are different from radicals), and, if your work has that same exact system, or one that's similar enough, then the only place it could possibly have come from is from Heisig's book (it's irrelevant whether there was an intermediary or if it was directly from his book)...further proving that you copied it.

That system doesn't show up anywhere else, it was created by Heisig, and only published in his copyrighted books. It would be impossible for you to have coincidentally recreated it.

So, just to summarize, the question isn't whether you're allowed to have similarities. The question is, how many similarities does it take to prove that copying took place. One similarity, in isolation, is not proof. Two are not proof. Three are not proof. All of them, together, are. So it's not a matter of not affording a lawyer. You would lose, even with a lawyer.