The most famous case between an author and a secondary author should be the "Candy Candy Case," but I have not seen this topic discussed in conjunction with the recent case.

Perhaps this is called an "industry taboo," thinks Ebata (me), who can't read the air.

In copyright law, 'the original author is the strongest' is absolute, but when profit is involved, 'the rich are the strongest' seems the same in every world.

-----

This is an issue that creators and researchers do not want to touch.

My columns are based on various books and open data, and my illustrations are based on illustrations and photos described by others.

Regarding research activities, not a single millimeter of progress can be made without a paper on previous research.

Conversely, my creations are sometimes cited in other works (and there are plenty of diversions and plagiarism).

I have heard that one of my patent specifications, which I wrote but could not patent, has rejected more than 70 subsequent patent applications (the "effect of exclusion of subsequent applications for prior inventions").

I am trying to say that 'creative activity completely unrelated to prior works' is 'an illusion.

-----

At any rate, what is now required of creators is, of course, first and foremost, the creative activity itself.

But the next most crucial thing might be to study the law (copyright law).

It's a hassle, but protecting your work and life is necessary.