zlacker

>>davidg+(OP)
Is the code in question even covered by copyright in the first place? It seems utilitarian in nature.

Oh, the comments! Those are covered by copyright for sure.

>>willia+G7
> It seems utilitarian in nature

That has no bearing on copyright.

>>SrslyJ+rp
It absolutely does.

Here’s like the first link after a DuckDuckGo search for “copyright utilitarian”:

However, copyright law does not extend to useful items. Therefore, complications may arise when sculptural works are also “useful” items. In these instances, copyright law will protect purely artistic elements of a useful article as long as the useful item can be identified and exists independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article (this concept is sometimes called the “separability test”). 17 U.S.C. §. A “useful article” is an article that has a purpose beyond pure aesthetic value.

https://www.rtlawoffices.com/articles/can-i-copyright-my-des...

Is it safe to assume the rest of the downvotes were from people who were also incorrect?