About 5 years ago I created a list in my own language following the Heisig method.
I never owned the book, so for the most part I came up with my own ideas and getting some helpful clues on this site.
Then I freely released the list to everyone: being it in my language, I assumed it could be helpful to other people as well (the list is on this website as well).
All was well until recently, when I got noticed by a publisher that all my work has been copied from the Heisig books and I must remove it from the web, or they will sue.
Just to report an example, in the eyes of those who threatened to sue me, even the fact of associating a japanese "十" to a roman "X" is copyright material.
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.

To me, that seems a bit ridiculous.
Has anyone some advice or ever experienced something like this?

Thank you.

I had no personal experience but as I know the situation, everything is pretty ridiculous and can only be resolved in courts.
it is very common to sue people just to kill competition expecting that you will not have funds for lawyers and trials and just give up.

Also it is quite common to copyright something that you don't own like Disney which claims ownership on Snow White, Alice and many other folk characters they just stole themselves from public domain. But as I know nobody was capable to fight them legally.

I think you should ask for a list of supposed copyright infringements in you work  and maybe change those parts a bit or provide references to same associations on public domain.
if there is no obvious alternative you can argue that association is evident (you cant copyright something saying that circle is letter o)

it is very possible they will refuse to provide you full list  because main goal is to kill competition in which case you will have to fight in courts against this troll.

I'm not sure about the legality, especially since it is international copyright law.  I'm guessing the law is very complicated on this issue and open to interpretation.  But like a lot of legal issues, you could be perfectly within the law, but unwilling to assert your rights in court.  Are you willing to hire legal counsel and argue your case in court?  If not, you are likely playing with fire by not removing it.

(2016-02-09, 2:35 pm)Digix Wrote: I think you should ask for a list of supposed copyright infringements in you work  and maybe change those parts a bit or provide references to same associations on public domain.

Not a bad idea, however I suspect they will simply say that op is translating their copyrighted work without having translation rights.  It would be like translating a new york times best seller into another language.  While you could change the words you use, it wold still be a translation of the original work and a copyright violation.

I think "until recently" is the key issue here. Imagine this is a fansub, there's a certain leniency until a series is licensed (especially if it's in a language not English), but once the series is actually licensed in your country, it's law infringement.

So it seems an edition of Heisig will be published in your language soon; if I were you I'd remove my content.

(2016-02-09, 11:56 am)alphador Wrote: 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.

To me, that seems a bit ridiculous.

What they are likely referring to are kanji that are made of other kanji.  That, and the ordering of kanji whereby you learn a kanji and then learn a kanji which contains the first kanji and so on.  While I am not sure of this, I believe this is the major original contribution of the heisig method.

(2016-02-09, 4:32 pm)yogert909 Wrote:

(2016-02-09, 2:35 pm)Digix Wrote: I think you should ask for a list of supposed copyright infringements in you work  and maybe change those parts a bit or provide references to same associations on public domain.

Not a bad idea, however I suspect they will simply say that op is translating their copyrighted work without having translation rights.  It would be like translating a new york times best seller into another language.  While you could change the words you use, it wold still be a translation of the original work and a copyright violation.

they cant claim that if you make it different you can hold copyright on certain block of text at best, but you cant copyright meaning of that text.
if "my llttle pony" is copyrigthed term "my little horse" or "my cute pony" is not
as I know it is legal to retell stories in your own words. like if  new York times wrote that Obama was elected its is not copyright infringement to write that in your page.

more likely reason why they wont tell exact list of infringements is because they wand to make it more scary and prevent you from preparing your defense in the court and because you can just fix those violations without taking down your work thus ruining the case for them.

Anyway, I believe that it is pretty hard to win case in foreign country for an outsider (unless it is US company or multinational ) , so those supposed copyright holders have little chance.

(2016-02-09, 4:38 pm)EratiK Wrote: I think "until recently" is the key issue here. Imagine this is a fansub, there's a certain leniency until a series is licensed (especially if it's in a language not English), but once the series is actually licensed in your country, it's law infringement.

So it seems an edition of Heisig will be published in your language soon; if I were you I'd remove my content.

No, it is infringement from the very beginning regardless if series are licensed or not. It is just common myth that fansubs are legal untill series get licensed.

(2016-02-09, 6:27 pm)Digix Wrote: No, it is infringement from the very beginning regardless if series are licensed or not. It is just common myth that fansubs are legal untill series get licensed.

Why I talk about leniency.

(2016-02-09, 6:21 pm)Digix Wrote: they cant claim that if you make it different you can hold copyright on certain block of text at best, but you cant copyright meaning of that text.
if "my llttle pony" is copyrigthed term "my little horse" or "my cute pony" is not
as I know it is legal to retell stories in your own words. like if  new York times wrote that Obama was elected its is not copyright infringement to write that in your page.

To use your example "my little pony" is a trademark. It is not a copyright. So what you say about this is correct as it applies to trademarks. However the my little pony stories are subject to copyright laws and even if you change the name my little pony to something else and change every word in the story or translate it into another language, you will still run afoul of copyright laws because the story is the same even if you change the pony to a giraffe. The story is more important than the exact words.

Your obama example isn't a good one because obama being elected is a fact and facts are not subject to copyright laws. And even if they were, under fair use, you can use small segments of copyrighted material if the material itself is newsworthy.

A 'component' in Heisig terms is a set of strokes that is used repeatedly in other kanji. Some of these are radicals, some of them are kanji on their own, an some of them are simply ... a set of strokes that is used in other characters but never appears as a character on their own nor as a radical. Heisig is the first person that I'm aware of to have grouped these things under a single term.

Copyright of reference works is considerably different from copyright of fictional works.

You cannot copyright a fact. You also cannot copyright an obvious way to organize facts ... this is key to why the phone company cannot copyright the phone book. An alphabetical listing of names followed by phone numbers is an obvious way to organize a list of facts.

You can, however, copyright a unique way to organize a set of facts. Heisig order is a fairly unique set of facts with a fairly unique organization. Organizing the kanji in a way that groups them by 'components' and orders them so that simpler components are used to build characters and other components in a progressive fashion is exactly the kind of unique organization that can be copyrighted.

While I can say it's the -kind- of organization that can be copyrighted, I cannot say that the specific case of Heisig ordering -is- copyrightable. Even if it is copyrightable, it's not clear that a similar organization using the same principles would infringe on that copyright. To answer those questions you'll need at least a lawyer, and quite possibly a court case to settle the matter. I don't believe there is any case law in any country involving the book(s).

It is of course, impossible to copyright making the observation that 十 and roman numeral X are both cross-shapes that mean '10', but aside from organization, if you have a large set of mnemonics that are essentially identical to Heisig's mnemonics then there's a case for copyright to be made there. I think it's a weak case, but I'm not a lawyer and copyright cases can have surprising outcomes.

'My little pony' also is not a copyrighted or copyrightable phrase. It had been written and spoken many times before the toy was introduced. 'Snow White' and such also cannot be copyrighted. Those are all examples of Trademarks, which is an entirely different set of laws. It's important not to confuse patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Even though they are often grouped together under the term 'intellectual property', they function in very different ways.

One of the most important practical differences in this case is that copyright laws are very similar from one country to another and are enforceable internationally among countries that are signatories of the Berne Convention. (I don't know if the OP's country is such a country, but most countries are so it's likely).

17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Wrote:Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Translations fall squarely within "derivative works".

(2016-02-09, 8:19 pm)yogert909 Wrote: Translations fall squarely within "derivative works".

I'm afraid they actually do not,
http://cjam.info/en/legal-informations/c...-copyright

If the OP has a case it is not on the basis of being a translation. If his work can successfully be argued to be strictly a translation of Heisig's work then he would lose his case.

You should read more of that page in that link. A translation without the permission of the author of the original work is a copyright infringement, according to that page. A translation of a work in the public domain would be protected as an independent work.

The specific language from the link you provided is "The owner of copyright in an original work is granted in section 3(1)(a) of the Copyright Act the sole right "to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work". A potential translator of a copyrighted work must obtain permission from the copyright owner. "

Using kanji components is nothing new as kanji themselves are made of components grouped together
as listed here  http://kanjinetworks.com/index.cfm and in numerous other sites
for example 
庫 is  車 vehicle + 广 building what results storehouse; warehouse (warehouse storehouse for covering vehicles)
Heisig may use different grouping ways but  there are not that manu ways to group 2 or 4 radicals 

Quote:Your obama example isn't a good one because obama being elected is a fact and facts are not subject to copyright laws. And even if they were, under fair use, you can use small segments of copyrighted material if the material itself is newsworthy.

I used that example because similarity betwen 十 and X is also fact

(2016-02-09, 8:51 pm)bertoni Wrote: You should read more of that page in that link.  A translation without the permission of the author of the original work is a copyright infringement, according to that page.  A translation of a work in the public domain would be protected as an independent work.

yogert909 Wrote:The specific language from the link you provided is "The owner of copyright in an original work is granted in section 3(1)(a) of the Copyright Act the sole right "to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work". A potential translator of a copyrighted work must obtain permission from the copyright owner. "

Yes...? I don't understand what you guys are objecting to.

If fair use applies, then you do not need permission from the copyright owner to use his work.

The link I provided says you do need permission to translate a copyrighted work.

Which means fair use does not apply to translating a work.

I'm not understanding the objections here.

Edit: Oh wait. You said derivative works. I complete misread that as saying something else that implied fair use was at play. Never mind....

Mostly I misread your post. Sigh.

Actually, my work has not been translated from the original book, however, the stories I came up with, in most cases, use some of the same radicals which probably are in the original book (like water, person, fire) hence some stories might very well be similar, but that only applies to a few of the kanji.
And yes, they threatened me at the same time they released the official book in my country.
My suspicion is that even if I get the book and verify my stories one by one, and change the ones that look similar, the distributor might still wish to sue, just to eliminate a "competitor". And since I have no experience, money, time or will to invest in a legal cause, they might obtain what they want "for free". Can't deny that made me a little pissed off.
I suppose if one does not want to risk any problems he should give it up in the end, which is what happens in the fansub world too in these situations.

You could contact the folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org/

It's a long shot that they would take an interest in this case, but even if they aren't interested in helping directly they may be able to put you in contact with other similar organizations.

If you can find a pro bono lawyer and you aren't independently wealthy then you may not have a lot of choice.

(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.

In the light of what Stansfield said, I think KanjiDamage is a good example of something which is not a copy of Heisig work: the set of kanji is different, and so is their order. Stories are 100% original. And while traditional radicals have the same name, the other components names are different from the Heisig ones. Also many KD keywords are different from the rtk ones.

Are all of your keywords a direct translation of the rtk keywords?

What I reported (the fact that X and 十 look similar) was, of course, an exception, since most of the other have totally different stories (I am still checking though). And yet, I can assure you that even people who never read the book made that association, proving that it is a natural and obvious way to remember it (expecially if you live in the land where roman numbers were invented). Whatever, nothing that cannot be changed.

(2016-02-12, 4:22 am)alphador Wrote: What I reported (the fact that X and 十 look similar) was, of course, an exception, since most of the other have totally different stories (I am still checking though). And yet, I can assure you that even people who never read the book made that association, proving that it is a natural and obvious way to remember it (expecially if you live in the land where roman numbers were invented).

I understand that point (and agree, that's an obvious story, anybody could come up with it). But, like I said, that's not what matters, what matters is how many similarities there are. Even if it's obvious stuff, if it's a lot of them, it proves that copying was done. Sure, it's easy to coincidentally make this one story, that happens to be the same as in Heisig. But if it's a lot of them, then it becomes impossible for it to be a coincidence.

How many stories would you say are similar to the ones in Heisig? And how many primitives (of the kind that Heisig created himself, they weren't radicals before)? And how many primitive names, that aren't just the meaning of Kanji in Japanese (or any language). That's what matters. If it's not a lot, then you're fine. If it is, then you should probably change them, and then you'll be fine. Either way, this shouldn't cause you to have to take all your work down permanently, or worse, have to spend money on a lawyer. To me, at least, it seems like a fixable problem.

Look at it this way: they can't sue you over using Kanji in the same order Heisig did, or about translating the meaning of the Kanji themselves...since those are actual meanings of characters, plenty of open source dictionaries and sites publish them, even in English. Only thing they can sue you over are similar stories and primitive names (not all, just the ones Heisig came up with himself...sorry, I don't know what percentage that is, I only studied with the Heisig method, never paid attention to radicals). But I'm pretty sure those can be changed without ruining your work.

This is not 100%, but I'm also somewhat confident that you can use the same components Heisig uses, as long as you call them something else. Often, Heisig will name a primitive something that has nothing to do with its meaning, in any East Asian languages. Using that same name (or a translation of it) is an issue, but everything else seems like fair game.

P.S. And yes, I am aware that this site also has stories that technically violate the same copyright. But they're user submitted stories, they are not content the website owner copied. The website owner only published the Kanji and their keywords. Those are not subject to a copyright claim. Of course, user submitted stories can be challenged, but, as long as the site owner responds to those challenges appropriately (the same way youtube for instance responds, by taking down the content in question until the matter is settled one way or the other), the site itself is safe. You aren't safe, because it's your work. You can be sued directly, and you'll lose, for the same type of content that this site can't lose over. You can't say that it's someone else posting the offending stories on an open site, you're the one who put them up.

(2016-02-12, 1:20 pm)Stansfield123 Wrote: I understand that point (and agree, that's an obvious story, anybody could come up with it). But, like I said, that's not what matters, what matters is how many similarities there are. Even if it's obvious stuff, if it's a lot of them, it proves that copying was done. Sure, it's easy to coincidentally make this one story, that happens to be the same as in Heisig. But if it's a lot of them, then it becomes impossible for it to be a coincidence.

I already verified around 100 stories: actually, not many similarities for now, but this whole story made me paranoid, so I will be do my best to avoid any possible similarities, also putting the list offline for now.
Anyway, Heisig book gets a bit lazy after around 500 kanji, avoiding to provide stories for the kanji and letting the reader make them up. So, in the end my list has a total of around 2100 stories, more than twice the original book. In percentaces, I'd say the kanji that present similarities could be around 5%. Since I was not provided with a list of kanji that I got to change (they "do not have time" for that, so they say) it is a lot of work, but as you said too, nothing that can't be solved