I guess this is a breach of Copyright, huh?

[AMSDOS]

I've been lazy by inserting the program descriptions from AA to accompany Type-Ins on Disk-Images, am I busted? I was only trying to make the programs sound more usable. (My excuse!  )

[ukmarkh]

You should really contact Future Publishing for any resources used from 'AA'. But I won't tell.

[redbox]

I wouldn't worry too much considering scanned versions of every issue have been available on the net for years.

[arnoldemu]

I've been lazy by inserting the program descriptions from AA to accompany Type-Ins on Disk-Images, am I busted? I was only trying to make the programs sound more usable. (My excuse!  )

Do you quote it and note the source?
Then you may be ok
I'll not tell either.

[AMSDOS]

Okay, I don't know if anyone was following the other thread I made in the other section, but basically the attachment which is included in that is just a sample of what the end thing will be (except with more programs on it). As a rule a program which was sent to magazines was considered to be Public Domain if no Copyright was displayed, though the issue I'm currently working on AA16, clearly has Amstrad Action   Jan 87, though I wasn't actually concerned about that cause if anyone has Copyright it should be the author (not AA) in that situation. If a program was copyrighted, then common sense would suggest that it's only there to protect the integrity of the program, realisitically speaking if the author doesn't want their program to be in a magazine, it wouldn't get published!

What I'm really concerned about are those opening introductions to those programs which would have been written. I guess when AA got submissions for Typeins they would have got some sort of summary with it to summerise what the program is and what it does and if they liked it, it would get submitted, some portion of that summary may get used, but then knowing how AA liked to make everything sound exciting, they would have written their own Introduction to the programs. All I've done is taken those introductions from that program, just so someone can understand it's function and how to use it. I probably am asking for trouble given I've literally just retyped what was in AA, the only positive I feel it won't damage Future Publishings integrity  and couldn't see what harm, I guess it's just a bit rude to do something like that and not mentioning it to them though.

Once I've completed the programs from AA16 type-ins though it will go on the CPCWiki Typeins page.

[Gryzor]

Yup. The programs are one thing, the descriptions another. But, in any case, I don't think that programs were in the public domain anyway automatically. Many magazines assume copyright of material sent to them, for themselves, so it may well be that even the type-ins are (c) AA even if written by others.

Also, you really don't have to write anything like (c) by blahblahblah to ensure you got the copyright. This is automatically attributed to you the moment you write or create something - basically the problem is proving you created it and when, but the printing of the type-in solves that issue by itself.

That said, nobody will care if you copy these comments. Who would? Still, the right thing to do would be to note the source.

[AMSDOS]

Okay, I'll note the source of the comments. The programs themselves already display that information, in some cases I'll just separate where my comments are and where AA made their comments.

I was thinking of the possibility of Interpreting those programs for Turbo Pascal, at the moment while I haven't interpreted any from magazines, I have interpreted a program written in BASIC from a Book (not an Amstrad Specific one though). In that situation I haven't encountered any problems from the person who wrote it nor the publisher (not sure if their still around). The issue with AA and what's copyright and not copyright I guess depends on when it was published. In later issues of AA the Type-Ins section had a little blurb about what was public domain and what wasn't. In the case of the author they had to tell AA if it was Copyright otherwise it was simply assumed to be Public Domain, there might have been an problem where somone didn't copyright their material and someone took stuff from their source perhaps?