# Copyright of Randomly Generated Content **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 31, 2004, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152 "2004-10-31T10:27:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/1 "2004-10-31T10:27:15Z")
This is somewhat hypothetical, but it isn’t completely beyond the pale of what’s currently possible. Let’s say a programmer wrote a program to take some input text, transform it according to rules and a second random input, and save the result to a file. He looks over the most recent batch of files, and he finds one that’s really quite funny. (Anyone who’s played with dissociated-press on Emacs knows what I’m talking about.) Legally, does he own the text, seeing as how he didn’t, strictly speaking, create it? Secondly, if he was using other people’s works as the input, can his output files be seen as fair use? ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/2 "2004-10-31T17:25:04Z")
Your entering the murky depths of copyright law and, frankly, we just don’t know because nobody has ever been tried on such a case and, IMHO, the courts would rather keep it that way. Patent absurdities can be made on both sides of the argument, if I use a random text generator on a royalty free english dictionary and generate the lyrics to a Britney Spears song, does that fall under copyright? We just dont have the legal system in place to deal with such a question. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/3 "2004-10-31T17:40:47Z")
It certainly doesn’t seem to be in line with the spirit of the copyright laws. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/4 "2004-10-31T17:41:09Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Your entering the murky depths of copyright law and, frankly, we just don’t know because nobody has ever been tried on such a case and, IMHO, the courts would rather keep it that way. > > Patent absurdities can be made on both sides of the argument, if I use a random text generator on a royalty free english dictionary and generate the lyrics to a Britney Spears song, does that fall under copyright? We just dont have the legal system in place to deal with such a question. “Next case: The estate of William Shakespeare vs an infinite number of monkeys.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/5 "2004-10-31T17:57:53Z")
Something that’s approaching the edge of the question, I suppose - “Millenium hand and shrimp” is a nonsense phrase author Terry Pratchett puts into the mouth of a character, “Foul Ole Ron”. Apparently, Pratchett got this phrase by playing with a text scrambling program and picking out stuff that tickled him. He claimed to have input the menu of a Chinese takeout because it was lying on his desk, and must have also included the lyrics to “Particle Man” by “They Might Be Giants” (Pratchett is an immense fan of the band). ---
**Author:** ![TJdude825](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@TJdude825](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJdude825)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/6 "2004-11-01T02:06:27Z")
> [@yabob](#): > > Something that’s approaching the edge of the question, I suppose - “Millenium hand and shrimp” is a nonsense phrase author Terry Pratchett puts into the mouth of a character, “Foul Ole Ron”. Apparently, Pratchett got this phrase by playing with a text scrambling program and **picking out stuff that tickled him**. He claimed to have input the menu of a Chinese takeout because it was lying on his desk, and must have also included the lyrics to “Particle Man” by “They Might Be Giants” (Pratchett is an immense fan of the band). I suspect the phrase I’ve bolded might be important. It seems to me that if you just take the first thing a program randomly comes up with, then you hardly deserve any credit for running the program and claiming the output as your own. But songwriters randomly search lists of rhyming words (either in their minds or in rhyming dictionaries) and then pick the ones that work the best. Or they play notes and chords with some amount of randomness until they find combinations that sound good. So it probably does matter that it’s what **he** thinks is good, not just what some computer spit up randomly. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/7 "2004-11-01T08:46:41Z")
Hm. I figured this case would be fairly straightforward, such that I was almost ashamed to have to post it here. But I’m a programmer, not a lawyer, and I figured I had better get others’ opinions on the matter. I think the element of individual selection is indeed important. However, we can remove that element and still have art. The works of John Cage include such pieces as _4’33"_ and _Radio Music_, which are equally random and do not include nearly as much artistic choice on the part of the composer or the musicians. (The first is four minutes, thirty-three seconds of silence, the second is `played’ with one to eight radios, each tuned to a different frequency.) I cannot imagine anyone being successfully prosecuted for violating the copyright of either work, although both have been recorded. I guess there’s more to copyright than I thought. If the copyright laws can’t handle something like dissociated-press, it’s going to be very interesting when and if someone tries to copyright a self-modifying program and all of the possible results from its execution. Here’s another scenario, to be answered or ignored or simply discussed on a factual basis: Let’s say someone patents a computer chip that can write its own software as it processes information. Who would own the copyright to that software? Does the patent have any bearing on this matter? (I’m ignoring, for the moment, the contentious issue of software patents.) ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/8 "2004-11-01T12:00:49Z")
Given that software currently has no legal rights, the creator would own it largely by default as theres no other party it could possibly go to. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/9 "2004-11-01T12:12:09Z")
I remember reading last year about a computer programme that intelligently generated thousands of tunes that the programmer then copyrighted so he could then sue any unfortunate composer later on . I am not sure what happened there ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/10 "2004-11-01T12:15:20Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Given that software currently has no legal rights, the creator would own it largely by default as theres no other party it could possibly go to. I suppose this makes sense. But couldn’t your argument also be applied to my first case and be just as valid? ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/11 "2004-11-01T13:52:46Z")
It’s fairly clear that a writer retains copyright even if she uses aids in creating her work, including a thesaurus, a computerized rhyming dictionary, or a random word chooser. The writer is still making judgements (including picking the input text) to create a brand-new creative work. It’s a more interesting question whether one could copyright huge amounts of random text/melodies, then wait for the random text to match something another person writes, and sue for copyright violation. Might be a bigger conflict between intent and the law as written there. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/12 "2004-11-01T14:21:32Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I think the element of individual selection is indeed important. However, we can remove that element and still have art. The works of John Cage include such pieces as _4’33"_ and _Radio Music_, which are equally random and do not include nearly as much artistic choice on the part of the composer or the musicians. (The first is four minutes, thirty-three seconds of silence, the second is `played’ with one to eight radios, each tuned to a different frequency.) I cannot imagine anyone being successfully prosecuted for violating the copyright of either work, although both have been recorded. There was a case where a band put a segment of silence in one of their songs, claimed it was a sample from 4’33", and got sued because they didn’t seek permission. I don’t remember the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/13 "2004-11-01T14:23:19Z")
The randomly generated text can be copyrighted. It doesn’t matter what the source was; otherwise someone could copyright the dictionary and sue if you use any of the words without permission. As long as the final result is not recognizable as the original, it’s OK. (There could be an argument that this is a derivative work, but that seems to me to be a very shaky case.) It’s the order of the words, not the words themselves, that are copyrightable. > [@](#): > > It’s a more interesting question whether one could copyright huge amounts of random text/melodies, then wait for the random text to match something another person writes, and sue for copyright violation. > Might be a bigger conflict between intent and the law as written there. Not that big an issue. The random text must match words the other person writes. It’s unlikely you can get more than a few lines that match. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/14 "2004-11-01T16:33:38Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > It’s fairly clear that a writer retains copyright even if she uses aids in creating her work, including a thesaurus, a computerized rhyming dictionary, or a random word chooser. The writer is still making judgements (including picking the input text) to create a brand-new creative work. > > It’s a more interesting question whether one could copyright huge amounts of random text/melodies, then wait for the random text to match something another person writes, and sue for copyright violation. > Might be a bigger conflict between intent and the law as written there. I think you would be equally as succesful as if you tried to copywright “It was a dark and stormy night” ---
**Author:** ![Small\_Clanger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@Small\_Clanger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Clanger)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-of-randomly-generated-content/272152/15 "2004-11-01T16:46:19Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > There was a case where a band put a segment of silence in one of their songs, claimed it was a sample from 4’33", and got sued because they didn’t seek permission. I don’t remember the outcome. Mike Batt did it: > [@](#): > > By David Lister Media and Culture Editor, The Independent > 21 June 2002 > Mike Batt, the man behind the Wombles and Vanessa Mae, has put a silent > 60-second track on the album of his latest classical chart-topping > prot?g?s, the Planets. This has enraged representatives of the avant-garde, > experimentalist composer John Cage, who died in 1992. The silence on his > group’s album clearly sounds uncannily like 4’33", the silence composed by > Cage in his prime. I think it was resolved with a donation to charity.