The OP put something on the internet with the intention for others to use it. Apple used it.
Is there anything on his site (terms,"rules") that indicate what Apple is doing is considered non-acceptable use?
Shouldn't we be happy the world can still work like this - bottom-up implementation with presumably good intentions - instead of having to talk to lawyers before every tiny step we take? We're taking about looking up a guitar chord for crying out loud.
Of course better attribution is desirable. Why not let this be Step 2.
I admit a bad turnout could be an unexpectedly high bill for the OP. And I would assume Apple to turn a deaf ear if he'd requested them to help pay that bill. But aren't those the consequences of putting up a public API?
@asaph If you want: please follow up on this and let HN know how this plays out. What course of action you took, how Apple responded (if at all)
The basis of copyright is that you own what you make and you retain the exclusive right to publish it and decide how it should be published.
If you don't have any terms of service or any kind of licensing info on your website the default is: it belongs to you and you choose to exclusively publish your work on that website. Just because there's no license info doesn't mean it's public domain. You have the right to cite the content properly (meaning attribution) as part of anther work under fair use.
The problem here is the technicality of what it actually means to publish on a website.
"the default is: it belongs to you and you choose to exclusively publish your work on that website. Just because there's no license info doesn't mean it's public domain. You have the right to cite the content properly (meaning attribution) as part of anther work under fair use."
Interesting, thanks. (I presume there is jurisprudence to substantiate this statement)
If true, it opens up a way to question fair-use: Suppose Apple now properly cites JGuitar.com as the source, and otherwise continues its implementation unchanged, would that be fair-use? Hmmm.
Did he put up a public API? From the post it looks like the shortcut is constructing a search result url, and then scraping the photo out of that page.
You're not abusing the web IMO, however, if you sell that browser there's a good case for contributory copyright infringement as you'd be commercial aiding others in making derivative works from the website owners content.
Not an 'API' in its most commonly used definition - but a publicly accessible interface to his chord search algorithm nevertheless. Wouldn't you agree?
The OP put something on the internet with the intention for others to use it. Apple used it. Is there anything on his site (terms,"rules") that indicate what Apple is doing is considered non-acceptable use?
Shouldn't we be happy the world can still work like this - bottom-up implementation with presumably good intentions - instead of having to talk to lawyers before every tiny step we take? We're taking about looking up a guitar chord for crying out loud.
Of course better attribution is desirable. Why not let this be Step 2.
I admit a bad turnout could be an unexpectedly high bill for the OP. And I would assume Apple to turn a deaf ear if he'd requested them to help pay that bill. But aren't those the consequences of putting up a public API?
@asaph If you want: please follow up on this and let HN know how this plays out. What course of action you took, how Apple responded (if at all)
Congrats... I guess
[Edit: typo]