I'm not sure if you're asking a question or arguing that instructions can't be copyrighted, but here's the answer anyway:
It's the specific wording of the instructions that can be copyrighted. If I read your instructions, summarize, and put them in my own words, I haven't violated your copyright. If I copy your words exactly or change them only in some negligible way, I have violated your copyright.
The same is true for drawings. Are we talking about an exact copy of the diagram, or the same basic idea with different lines and different colors.
As you can see, there's still room for disagreement, but just because a definition is fuzzy at the edges (most definitions are), the definitions is still a useful concept.
Your directions for doing a triangle in a square could definitely be very different from mine and from anyone else's who might write them. Some people simply write much clearer directions than others. Just the choice of words can make a difference. So can the punctuation. Do you put the steps in a list format or simply run them all together in one paragraph or even one sentence? Do you include illustrations or diagrams? How much knowledge do you assume on the part of the user? There is definitely a reason why that type of information should be eligible for copyright.
To me at least, this brings up the question what is a "significant" change versus a "negligible" change. If I change one word is it "negligible" but change 10 is it "significant." How about if I change one of the sentences from active to passive. How about if change all of them from active to passive.
I guess my point is what is a practical guide to how much the text has to be changed?
Yes but I still wonder how one applies it without waiting for a supreme court ruling or without being hauled off to the klink or at least fined for copyright infrngement. I don't think this definition is fuzzy just at the edges, but is fuzzy at its very core.
I share your confusion over the difference between a significant change and a negligible one. There isn't a hard and fast answer that can be described in numbers. If you think about it, it's the same with all civil law (as opposed to criminal law). Look at suits in which a lawyer is asked to prove that his client has experienced considerable pain and suffering. Look at divorces where one has to show irreconcilable differences. None of this is easy to prove, and trying to pin down the definitions gets tricky. That's why we have lawyers, judges and a legal system.
(I'm not a lawyer. Family members are. I know we all love to engage in lawyer-bashing. I love a good joke too. But our legal system could not function without lawyers, and our society could not function without a legal system. I'm sure we can all think of ways to improve what we've got, but let's not go into the territory of scrapping the whole thing.)
I don't know of a practical guide unless it is this one: Consider how much work you put into making your designs and how carefully you go over instructions before putting them up for sale. Now imagine how you'd feel if someone copied your work and sold it under their own name or gave it away. Naturally everyone gets inspiration from everyone else, but ask yourself if you feel like you're getting inspiration and running with the idea or if you're coming out with something that no ordinary person could distinguish from the original.
No one is getting hauled off to the klink or fined for violating copyright law. That's for criminal violations, not civil ones. Know how we all joke about the quilt police, the folks in blue uniforms that rap on your door and handcuff you for improper implementation of quarter inch seams? Talking about copyright is becoming like that. We imagine that a man with a gun in a holster is going to see our quilts and accuse us getting too many ideas from Nancy Crow. It doesn't work like that in reality.
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.