Australian Judge Rules Facts Cannot Be Copyrighted

nfarrell writes "Last week, an Australian Judge ruled that copyright laws do not apply to collections of facts, regardless of the amount of effort that was spent collecting them. In this case, the case surrounded the reproduction of entries from the White and Yellow Pages, but the ruling referred to a previous case involving IceTV, which republishes TV guides. Does this mean that other databases of facts, such as financial data, are also legally able to be copied and redistributed?" Here are analyses from a former legal adviser to the directory publisher which prevailed as the defendant in this case, and from Smart Company.

Comments

Settled law in the United States

[Kirijini]

This has been settled law in the United States since the Supreme Court ruling in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991). You can read the whole opinion on Google Scholar. I highly recommend reading it, it's a classic in American copyright law.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. So the publication of facts is uncopyrightable.

If I really wanted to go to extremes, could I demand that documentaries, photographs, or other representations of "facts" as being uncopyrightable as well?

I'm really just confused as to what extent we can classify things as facts or not facts.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Trepidity]

Particular representations of facts, like documentaries or photographs, can be copyrighted. It's the underlying facts that can't be, so you can't stop someone else from publishing the same facts in a way that doesn't use any of your creative presentation of them. In Feist, the court held that there wasn't any creative presentation at all, because listing all people in an area code in alphabetical order was just the bare facts, with no presentation that rose to the level of something copyrightable. If they had done something creative, they could copyright that part, but anyone could still extract and republish the names and phone numbers, because that bare list isn't copyrightable.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Trepidity]

To give a not-yet-litigated example of what I think would be the 3d analogy: A 3d model exactly capturing the surface of the Washington Monument is not copyrightable, because it's mere facts. However, particular photographs or films of the Washington Monument are copyrightable, as they have creative presentation. However (again), someone who collected a bunch of photographs or films of it and extracted a 3d model of the Washington Monument from them, would not be violating the copyright on the photographs or films, because they were merely copying the facts (the 3d spatial position of the stones).

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

In the movie Avatar, 13m23.82 seconds in, the color at a position 0.2912 of the screen width from the left, and 0.1482 of the screen height from the top, has RGB values 13, 73, 211.

Is this a fact or not?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[smallfries]

It's a nice try, but you are trying to define a fact based on some copyrighted work. While meta-logic tricks might seem like a nice way around for a geek, for a lawyer they are simply a violation of copyright.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a brief review to me.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[mwvdlee]

How about a rendering of the 3D model?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[MrNaz]

That's not a brief review. That's a comprehensive cover of the movie's entire plot, including a spoiler.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[JorDan Clock]

That's a fact based on a creative work. Not a creative work based on a fact.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough, it would seem that eliminating information can make something copyrightable. The elimination process takes creativity (you have to choose what to leave out), so presumably if I publish a creative 2D representation, or only a carefully selected subset of the phonebook, I can claim copyright??

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Tim C]

On a related note, courts tend to take a rather dim view of people trying to take the piss and exploit clever word play to try to get around a law like that. It also takes you well out of "I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was wrong..." and squarely into culpable intent territory, which is likely to up the consequences to the higher end of the scale.

(Note: of course, IANAL)

Re:Settled law in the United States

[peragrin]

I used to believe that too until I read that SCO is is still in alive and in court saying crap like that.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly any 3D model would not be accurate to 100% not even 10% or 1% (counting all details and lack of volume/material information) and is therefor only an interpretation and not fact.
A phone number is abstract, such as the nature of numbers, ie. fact. You can copyright how you present that fact, in printed/digital text/images etc.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[ookabooka]

Which begs the question: Why hasn't the US gov trademarked the Washington Monument?

Did I use "begs the question" appropriately here?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[tepples]

My understanding is that an original rendering with an original arrangement of lights on the (uncopyrightable) 3D model would be copyrightable, at least in the United States.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Bill Currie]

No, you did not. The phrase you want is "raises the question". (No, I don't know the correct usage, though I've seen it posted a few times)

Re:Settled law in the United States

[jklovanc]

I disagree. The fact that the Washington monument 555 feet and 5 1/8 inches tall is not copyrightable but a 3-D model may be. The model must have some form of coordinate system. It must have some sort or relationship between the coordinates. It must have some indication of what is solid and what is not. This is much more than simple facts.

If it was not copyrightable then there would be no way to recoup the cost of creating 3-D models of buildings. Think of how much it would cost to 3D model New York City.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Trepidity]

In philosophy and logic, question-begging is basically a fancy term for circular argument: using the thing you want to prove, or something equivalent to it, as part of your argument for that same thing.

Oddly that "correct" usage is itself actually somewhat of a corruption. Aristotle considered circular argument different from question-beginning, and defined question-begging as asking your opponent in a debate to conceded a point that was equivalent to the point being debate. They're somewhat related concepts, though.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Trepidity]

If it was not copyrightable then there would be no way to recoup the cost of creating 3-D models of buildings. Think of how much it would cost to 3D model New York City.

Isn't that essentially the "sweat of the brow" argument U.S. copyright law explicitly rejected? The mere fact that it takes a lot of effort to compile some facts doesn't make them copyrightable.

(And in any case, it actually isn't very expensive to crowdsource a 3d model of a whole city.)

Re:Settled law in the United States

[srussia]

That's a fact based on a creative work. Not a creative work based on a fact.

Oddly enough, there is no intensional definition of "work" in the context of IP law.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[jklovanc]

You missed a key point of the the rejection;
"The arrangement and presentation of a collection may be original, but not if it is "simple and obvious" such as a list in alphabetical or chronological order."
The arrangement of 3D data is neither "simple" nor "obvious" for the reasons I already stated. If you disagree ask an average adult to create a 3D model of a building.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[johny42]

Washington Monument is probably already in public domain, the architect died in 1855.

But you are right to ask, something natural (like a mountain or a cave, etc.) would probably be a better example in parent's post.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The arrangement of 3D data is neither "simple" nor "obvious" for the reasons I already stated. If you disagree ask an average adult to create a 3D model of a building.

An exact model would contain no creative component. Especially considering that said arrangement of 3D data is going to be in some standardized format which is the 3D equivalent of alphabetizing a list of names.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[wvmarle]

But for the question whether the model is copyrightable or not (I would argue it is; while a e.g. list of telephone numbers or the results of sports events I would agree is not),to get any useful answer you will have to ask a judge. Or at least a lawyer specialised in the field.

I think you have good chance for making it copyrightable because it is a separate work though based on an actual building (photographs of it are also copyrightable). You may even violate the copyright (if any such exist) on the very design of the building though as photographs are OK I think you're clear there.

Though coming back to uncopyrightable lists, when you create statistics using those sports results those numbers may be copyrightable again, not sure about that. On one hand it is a fact (team A had five wins, three draws and eight losses this season - just counting the numbers), though it needs work to get there from the bare facts. And where that threshold lies... well again better ask a judge.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[erroneus]

Indeed. I was thinking more along the lines of the cases surrounding the collection and use of baseball statistics and TV guides, but yeah. And it makes perfect sense.

If it's a creative work, then someone doing the exact same research could put together something similar and come up with something completely different. In the case of non-creative works, if someone did the exact same research they would come up with identical data. This is why facts should not and cannot be copyrightable. They are not creative works.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[osu-neko]

Rule of thumb: if you're using "begs the question" correctly, you probably don't have to state what question is being begged, since that's implicit. An argument that "begs the question" is circular, so it boils down to "if (something is true), then (something is true)", which, of course, begs the question (the question being, "Well, is (something) true or not?").

Re:Settled law in the United States

[erroneus]

I think one part of the test should include the probability that two independent parties doing the same work ending up with the exact same result should determine whether or not something should be a creative work.

Would two parties doing the exact same work come up with two [substantially] different models of the Washington monument? I doubt it.

If this test were applied, I think it becomes increasingly more obvious as to what is a creative work and what is not.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Registered Coward v2]

To give a not-yet-litigated example of what I think would be the 3d analogy: A 3d model exactly capturing the surface of the Washington Monument is not copyrightable, because it's mere facts. However, particular photographs or films of the Washington Monument are copyrightable, as they have creative presentation. However (again), someone who collected a bunch of photographs or films of it and extracted a 3d model of the Washington Monument from them, would not be violating the copyright on the photographs or films, because they were merely copying the facts (the 3d spatial position of the stones).

That's an interesting question - would the result be a derivative work and hence subject to the original's copyright? Each photo provides the photographer's view and distorts the actual relationship by the very act of capturing in 2d a 3d object.

I'm not saying that should be the case; but it could be.

Any real IP lawyers care to chime in?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Opportunist]

Our law concerning derivative art makes it dependent on your "creative input" whether the use is permitted or whether it's plagiarism. The use of someone else's 3d mesh is not permitted, unless you can somehow show that you used it as the foundation of something bigger where the used 3d mesh was altered and added to in such a meaningful way that you created a new piece of art.

That's how collage art is permitted, since the (probably copyrighted) pieces used are only used to create something larger. The same, btw, applies to music samples. Even though the IFPI keeps pushing against it, so far it withstood.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Opportunist]

For the same reason NASA pics are not copyrighted: They already belong to "the people". Please don't take it away from us, it's not like we were allowed to keep much else that we enjoyed as "our" right.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another example.

In the petroleum industry, companies use expensive instruments lowered down a well to take all sorts of readings of the physical properties of the surrounding rocks. The raw numbers (i.e. the measurements) are copyrighted by the company that collected the data, as are the original paper plots of the values (a particular presentation). The companies that record this stuff charge hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, much of the well data must be released publicly after a period of time, and even though copyright is still retained by the collector of the data, the public release gives you new options. If you sit down and digitize the paper plots to generate your own numbers from them (i.e. deriving an approximation of the values on the graphical plot), you have merely copied the "facts", and you aren't infringing. There is a whole industry based on this principle.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[mpeskett]

If I understand correctly, you could claim copyright on the creative part, but not the factual part - so your subset of the phone book ... well there's still not a lot there but facts, but if you took a subset of the phone book and presented it in some creative way, then that particular creative presentation could be copyrighted, but not the numbers themselves.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[mpeskett]

So circular argument would be "X therefore X" whereas begging the question would be "Do we all agree that X? Well then Y" where X = Y, but phrased differently. Either way you're taking the conclusion of your argument as a premise; the difference is in whether you're stating it as your premise or asking an opponent to agree with it as a premise.

If your goal is just to show that your opponent agrees with you, begging the question could be a valid argument - if the question you've 'begged' and the conclusion reached really are logically equivalent, but your opponent professes to agree with one and disagree with the other, then you've effectively shown their position to be self-contradictory. Says nothing about the actual truth of X (and it's easily abused by people claiming two things to be logically equivalent that aren't) but as a method of argument it could work.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[naam00]

There is no standardized format for 3D models. Sure there are some oft-used formats for transport between different applications, but in those, even the fact that the model is built up out of verteces and triangles is somewhat of an artistic choice -- the modeller could have chosen NURBs. And even after that choice, the way in which he decides to distribute the polygons or NURBs can be wholly different from another modeller. As such there doesn't exist any way to build an exact 3D model of anything.

Any model built after an existing landmark will be some kind of rendition of that landmark. I think the rendition is the bit that would be copyrightable -- it's just as much not a pure representation of bare facts as a photograph would be. I'd say even if you make a laserscan of the object, this still somehow applies.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[nine-times]

If it was not copyrightable then there would be no way to recoup the cost of creating 3-D models of buildings.

Right, I think people are forgetting about the part in the Constitution where it says, "The Congress shall make laws ensuring that all business expenses are recoupable in full." IIRC it comes right before, "The Congress shall construct laws to ensure that current business models remain protected from innovation," and "The Congress shall bail out any large companies which are failing."

I mean, we can't let any big businesses fail to be profitable, right? That'd be bad for the economy.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[nine-times]

While meta-logic tricks might seem like a nice way around for a geek

I think part of the problem is that geeks think of laws as programming algorithms. They expect that judges and juries don't have any more ability to interpret laws than computers have the ability to interpret a line of code. It's all if/then statements which result in an unambiguous boolean value.

In reality, courts often use the fuzzier human way of thinking about things. Yes, sometimes a case will get caught up on a technicality, but judges can ignore technicalities if they shouldn't apply to a particular case. In fact, you might say that's kind of their job-- to make decisions about which technicalities apply when.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[metageek]

It is a fact if you add the place and time of when this RGB value hit a screen. (but be warned IANAL)

Re:Settled law in the United States

[nine-times]

Well I think it's still a little unclear, since there are not a finite set of data points for a 3D model. Therefore you can't have an *exact* model, and the creation of any model might include some particular choices about which data points to include.

I'm not a lawyer, so I really don't know how that plays out.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[dimeglio]

They might be able to get away with just publishing is at a work of fiction and stating that all references to real or actual people represented in the book are purely coincidental. But that might not work well for a phone book.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[theshowmecanuck]

What makes me wonder about this is the fact that many museums stop visitors from taking photographs of exhibits because they state they maintain a copyright of everything in the museum. For example I visited Paul Allen's 'Experience the Music Project' in Seattle and wanted to photograph a 100+ year old guitar (without using a flash). The security guard came over and told me I couldn't because that would be copyright infringement, and he would have to throw me out. I thought WTF? How do you copyright the reflection of light off of an object into my eyes, or onto my CCD? That is the ultimate of fact... what is there before your eyes. Of course not being as rich as a Microsoft co-founder, I have no resources to challenge the validity of this kind of copyright, so decided to leave and not give those pricks any more of my money than I already did.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Artifakt]

For example, if somebody published a phonebook that color coded different businesses by how long they had been in the area, that particular system of color coding would be copyrightable. Anyone could still print a table that had the names, phone numbers, and number of years in the area, using black and white, or make up a system where different fonts or type sizes or italics conveyed the same information.
      What's not clear from such decisions is what happens when the 'creative' portion inspires someone else to do something different with regard to the facts portion. For example, someone could make a phonebook that used color to show all the businesses that were currently in litigation, or were minority owned, or some such - would the first phonebook maker's copyright restrict that someone? Once people start linking more than two groups of facts, or bring in different groups than tradition supports, is there significant creativity just from inclusion? (Everybody knows the standard business phonebook includes street addresses as well as names and numbers - is it significantly creative to also include e-addresses? Is it not sufficiently creative to include whether or not they are better business bureau members?).

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Zerth]

One x,y,z point per planck^3 with a probability of it being occupied?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Aristotle considered circular argument different from question-beginning

Would you like a side of ridicule to go with that portion of fail?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[butlerm]

A 3D model of a building, as such, is of course copyrightable. However, the facts within the 3D model, to the degree that they are facts, are not. The same issue applies to maps. Maps are copyrightable. The facts represented by the map, however, to the degree, and only to the degree, that they are facts are not protectable by copyright, no matter how much effort was engaged in collecting them.

So ironically, the more accurate a model or a map is, the greater the content of true facts (rather than selective approximations), and thus the more susceptible to be used as a legtitimate source of facts for models and maps created by others. Of course determining what is and what isn't a fact in the original map or model is a major burden on the latter, as it should be. If you do not have two or more independent sources for the same information, it can be rather risky.

That means that for all practical purposes there is absolutely no way that one can run a 3D model through some sort of automated process that extracts all the facts and creates a new, unencumbered 3D model. Somebody has to decide what really is a fact, and to do that reliably he or she needs at at least two independent sources to review, and then create a new model based on considered judgment of what the facts of the matter actually are.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There is no standardized format for 3D models.

Sure there is - each application has its own format. There is no creativity involved in using the format that your application uses.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both right and wrong.

You're right insofar as that buildings are copyrighted to the architect that designed them, so you can't, for example, create a 3D model of a new building, or build another building that looks the same, and so on. (Of course, copyrights on buildings expire just like all other kinds.)

You're wrong insofar as that you bring the amount of work/money needed to create a model into the debate. The "sweat of the brow" argument holds no water in the USA; things are different e.g. in the UK, but in the USA, "it was a lot of work/cost a lot of money to create this!" is not in itself sufficient as a basis for a copyright claim.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Rockoon]

Never-the-less they do have the right to disallow the taking of photographs in their establishment, just as the local theater has the right to disallow the bringing of your own food and beverages.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[brit74]

Ah. When I first read the article summary, I thought, "facts aren't copyrightable? seems reasonable". Then I thought, maybe it isn't so reasonable afterall when I thought "Does that mean all works of non-fiction are now uncopyrightable? Does that mean encyclopedias can't be copyrighted? And if encyclopedias can't be copyrighted, then, logically, anyone can scan a copy of the encyclopedia Britanica and sell it? Doesn't that mean that someone can copy every page in Wikipedia and setup their own competing website? Doesn't that mean that anyone can make copies of textbooks and sell them?" Afterall, all of those things are legal when you're dealing with works that have falled out of copyright. I guess the "creative presentation of them" part might render those things illegal.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[WCguru42]

They probably tossed out the copyright threat as it is the tactic du jour but they'd have a much easier time simply saying that in their private establishment they do not allow photography, videography, etc. The problem with the latter is that it might make them look like dicks where the former is simply a vague legal issue that most don't understand.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that in Van Dale/Romme and Bridgeman/Corel the judge determined that certain collections of facts, namely those where the collector had to make subjective judgements on what to include or not to include or how to collect the facts, can be copyrighted.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Sir_Lewk]

What is your definition of exact? If you are too exact then suddenly we no longer know the momentum of the monument, and it will fly away!

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

So then save the 3D model's vertices as a bunch of factual statements. Start with the height like you said, and work your way through all of the dimensions of the object. Next create a program that interprets these statements to render the object.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Nadsat]

Hypothetically... under this law... could I do publish a copyrighted book, verbatim, by encapsulating it in a "fact statement". My book would begin like this: It is a fact that J.K. Rowling wrote the following words "[insert entire Harry Potter novel here"] Is this not publishing a fact, which is un-copyrightable? Why would this not stand up in court?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[cpt kangarooski]

So ironically, the more accurate a model or a map is, the greater the content of true facts (rather than selective approximations), and thus the more susceptible to be used as a legtitimate source of facts for models and maps created by others. Of course determining what is and what isn't a fact in the original map or model is a major burden on the latter, as it should be. If you do not have two or more independent sources for the same information, it can be rather risky.

Well, facts are not copyrightable, but a particular compilation of facts may be, due to the creativity in the selection and arrangement of those facts. If the selection and arrangement is not creative, e.g. a phone book that includes all listings, in alphabetical order, there's no copyright; if they are creative, e.g. a phone book that only includes your favorite restaurants and shops, listed in the order in which you think people ought to visit them, then there may be a copyright in that. Of course that copyright still doesn't prevent people from copying the underlying facts.

So if false facts are placed in a work, either deliberately or accidentally, their presence in a second work is a good indicator of copying. If the selection and arrangement are copyrightable and are copied as well, this could be infringing. But note that if something is presented as a fact, even if it is not true, others may rely upon it as a fact for copyright purposes (with the usual caveats about selection and arrangement). This has come up with books that claim things like the Hindenburg was destroyed by a bomb, or John Dillinger lived to old age, and movies and tv episodes that take those 'facts' and run with them.

Also, it is not appropriate to wield copyright as a sword, imposing "major burden[s]" on others. Copyright is meant to encourage authors, not discourage other authors. Forcing authors to constantly reinvent the wheel deters progress, as does establishing a system in which existing authors essentially have a veto power over new authors. Given that any author is likely to use others' works (or at least get close enough that expensive and lengthy legal battles might have to be fought, even if they'd be won) more than they have their own work used, it's generally safer and better for everyone involved for restrictions to be light.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[cpt kangarooski]

For example, if somebody published a phonebook that color coded different businesses by how long they had been in the area, that particular system of color coding would be copyrightable.

Well, no, that particular phone book might be copyrightable. Systems, like ideas, are never copyrightable; someone else could work out the algorithm you're using (if it wasn't made obvious) and use it themselves on other phone books, unless you were to patent it.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[AK Marc]

Does that mean encyclopedias can't be copyrighted? And if encyclopedias can't be copyrighted, then, logically, anyone can scan a copy of the encyclopedia Britanica and sell it?

You'd have to re-write it. The encyclopedia isn't a list of facts. You can take the table of contents and make your own that uses all that, and you can use it as the only source for yours, but you can't just copy it. There was creative work in the layout, fonts, pictures, wording connecting the facts (they use sentences, not disjoint facts in a non-grammatical listing like a phonebook).

So you could publish a work that contains every article the EB contains, with all the facts it contains, but you'd have to re-write it from scratch.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Kirijini]

I think the issue would actually be whether the underlying architectural work is copyrighted (or copyrightable) or not. An exact (as opposed to stylized) 3d model of the Washington Monument might not be copyrightable because the Washington Monument, insofar as it as an architectural or artistic work is in the public domain, is not copyrightable. No matter the effort in making the model, there would have to be a nominal amount of creativity differentiating the model and the original monument. To the extent that the making of the model required some elements of craft or skill or judgment, that would merely represent a "mere demonstration of physical skill or special training," and the exactness of the model would represent "a form of slavish copying that is the antithesis of originality." These quotes are from ATC Distrib. Group v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts (6th Cir. 2005) at 712 (the court was describing illustrations of actual auto parts in a catalog).

A 3d model of a copyrighted building or sculpture would be copyrightable, I would think, as a derivative work of the original. The creativity required of the 3d model would be derived from the creativity of the original. This means that the making of such a model without the copyright owner's permission would be an infringement.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Khyber]

"The arrangement of 3D data is neither "simple" nor "obvious" for the reasons I already stated."

I can tell someone never took a manual drafting class, where you sat at a table and drew everything by hand.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Khyber]

"There is no standardized format for 3D models."

Yes there is - it's called 'drafting.' Maybe there is no standardized format for computer representations, but EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM relies upon the same basic principles that originated from paper and pencil drafting/architectural design.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[russotto]

Hypothetically... under this law... could I do publish a copyrighted book, verbatim, by encapsulating it in a "fact statement". My book would begin like this: It is a fact that J.K. Rowling wrote the following words "[insert entire Harry Potter novel here"] Is this not publishing a fact, which is un-copyrightable? Why would this not stand up in court?

Because judges have been dealing with that kind of sophistry since at least the time of the Sophists, and they're not going to buy it.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is true then why isnt there a copyright for the bible? surely it counts as fiction and the author should get a royalty! ;)

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no standardized format for 3D models.

Sure there is - each application has its own format.

So he's right - there are several standards.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[HeronBlademaster]

If it was not copyrightable then there would be no way to recoup the cost of creating 3-D models of buildings. Think of how much it would cost to 3D model New York City.

People sell things that are out of copyright (or not copyrighted) all the time.

Just because you can't copyright something doesn't mean you can't make money off of it ;)

(That's not saying anything about whether 3-D representations of things are copyrightable. My gut says they are, but I'm not a lawyer...)

Re:Settled law in the United States

[jklovanc]

Where does the word "creative" come in. I was talking about the article about "sweat of the brow". Since the average adult can alphabetize a list of names and phone numbers (the facts) it is not copyrighted under this ruling. Likewise, since the average person, even if given the list of data points (which are the facts), could not create a 3D model from them it is copyrightable under this ruling.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[jklovanc]

Then music is not copyrightable because every song "relies on some basic principles" of mathematics an scoring.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[jklovanc]

Sorry, I took drafting in high school. If drafting was "simple and obvious" there would be no need for classes, some at university level, to teach it. Are there two year college courses in alphabetization? There are in drafting.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Philip_the_physicist]

If there was an element of creativity in the creation of the model, there would be copyright on the creativity. If the deviation from the original was simply a question of the precision to which the measurements were made, then there would be little to no creativity.

Photographs/prints of paintings which are themselves out of copyright would provide plenty of lawyer-fodder in this regard.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Trepidity]

A score of a public-domain piece of music indeed isn't independently copyrightable unless it were scored in some creative fashion.

(I'm talking here about 3d models of things that are themselves in the public domain; a 3d model of a sculpture where the sculpture itself is still under copyright would not be public domain.)

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Philip_the_physicist]

That is because the list of vertices is not the complete information. What is needed is the set of planes, which can be specified using the vertices and instructions about how to connect them together. that description would be copyrightable, but the collection of planes would not necessarily be. Thus, for example, if you wrote some OpenGL code to display an accurate model of the Washington Memorial and hard-coded the model, then whilst your code would probably be copyrightable, if I extracted the generated set of textured planes, it is fairly likely that I am not violating your copyright.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Rophuine]

This was established in Australia decades ago too - this is not news. I don't care enough to check my reference, but I was fairly involved in it at the time, and from memory it was "Infopac International V RP Data, (late 80s or early 90s)". The judge ruled that the creative presentation of the data purchased at great expense by RP Data (the database and presentation software) was copyrightable, but that the data itself, being factual (real estate sales data), was not copyrightable. If Infopac International could access it legally (it could), there was nothing RP Data could do to restrict its use of the data.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So he's right - there are several standards.

No, he did not say there is "no single standardized format" he said there is "no standardized format."

There is nothing about standardization the requires there be only a single standard. An example of multiple standards is screw-heads where there are at least all of these different standards: phillips, slotted, pozidriv, square, robertson-square, hex, torx, tri-wing, torq-set, spanner-head, triple-square, polydrive, one-way, spline-drive, double-hex and bristol.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I think you have good chance for making it copyrightable because it is a separate work though based on an actual building (photographs of it are also copyrightable). You may even violate the copyright (if any such exist) on the very design of the building though as photographs are OK I think you're clear there.

You are confusing the copyright on the design of the building - which is held by the building's designer - with the copyrightability of a model of the building. The case under discussion is a list of facts - facts are not copyrightable themselves. The design of a building is copyrightable. If you make an exact model of a building which is still under design copyright then the exact model will violate the copyright on the building - it won't get its own new copyright just because it was hard.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

The chance of two people happening to create the exact same 3D model is nearly infinitesimally small. Every single vertex, triangle, texture, shader, layer, light, shadow, etc. would have to be identical between the models. That is just not going to happen.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, since the average person, even if given the list of data points (which are the facts), could not create a 3D model from them it is copyrightable under this ruling.

Just as the average adult would find it far from simple or obvious to alphabetize an entire phonebook without the right set of tools either.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[digitalunity]

If such a test were implemented for software patents I would be a happy camper. There are so many software patents that are merely digital adaptations of things invented long ago, or mere incremental progression from existing software that I just don't think they should be patentable.

Only true innovation should be patentable, software or otherwise.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[dangitman]

What's an "exact" model? Accurate down to individual atoms?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What's an "exact" model? Accurate down to individual atoms?

In a case like this, I would define an "exact model" to be one in which the goal of constructing the model is to as closely replicate the design of the original as is possible given the various constraints of time, skill, available space, precision of instruments, etc. As long as the goal of the modeller is to attempt perfect replication then they are, by definition, avoiding creative work. And if they are explicitly trying not to be creative, then copyright's goal of encouraging creative work means copyright should not apply.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[bandmassa]

Thus the body of this debate, coupled with how one deliniates fact from presentation simply proves to me that copyright is broken and it was the application of law which broke it.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[lonecrow]

So how does Westlaw get defined in this? Don't they have a bare facts representation of all public court records? My memory is weak but isn't their index numbers the part that they protect? But couldn't someone else publish a database of court records and then publish as a statement of fact that "us v them" is indexed by Westlaw as case number #12j-n13?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Khyber]

Drafting took four weeks in my high school. The rest of the year was doing CAD. Drafting made CAD so much easier.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[jklovanc]

I doubt that at the end of that course everyone could create a 3D model of a building. Just because there may be simple and obvious aspects to something (drawing lines, measurements, etc) does not mean that the end product is simple and obvious. Chess for example, the rules and movement of each piece is simple and obvious but playing chess is not.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[RockDoctor]

I highly recommend reading it, it's a classic in American copyright law.

But ... American copyright law doesn't apply outside America, so why should I bother to read an article about such obscurities?

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Kirijini]

But ... American copyright law doesn't apply outside America...

Are you sure? I recommend you read Prof. Neil Netanel's paper, Why Has Copyright Expanded?. In part he argues that the US trade representative (heavily influenced by US content industry lobbyists) has used its significant leverage in the shaping of international IP treaties (such as TRIPS and WIPO) to greatly expand copyright protections in countries around the world (and, sinisterly, to expand the US's own copyright regime).

To the extent that the United States is the content-capital of the world (yeah, I know that's highly debatable), other countries should take note of US copyright policy and politics. If Australia adopts (more) draconian copyright rules - that sucks, especially for Australians. If the US adopts (more) draconian copyright rules, that's probably the harbinger of ever more draconian international treaties, which often economically coerce countries into changing their own laws.

Some quotes from Netanel's article:

"[C]opyright and other intellectual property lobbyists have also exerted extraordinary influence on the US position in international treaty and trade agreement negotiations. The industries have regularly used their political muscle to lead US negotiators to initiate treaty negotiations and sponsor provisions requiring other countries to expand their copyright protection...

"TRIPs requires WTO member countries to comply with prescribed standards for intellectual property protection and authorizes the imposition of trade sanctions against countries that fail to do so. In its initial submission to the TRIPs negotiations, the US delegation, working closely with copyright industry associations, proposed language on the permissible scope of countries’ limitations to copyright holder rights that would have made all but a highly crabbed, market-centered version of fair use a violation of the agreement.

"[T]he industry has continued adeptly to use international treaty negotiations as part of its domestic legislative strategy. The ‘paracopyright’ anti-circumvention provisions enacted as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 are another case in point.... [A]dministration officials, led by former software-industry lobbyist Bruce Lehman, brought the copyright industry-backed digital agenda to the World Intellectual Property Organization and urged that it be incorporated into new intellectual property treaties then under consideration.

"In December 1996 a WIPO-sponsored diplomatic conference adopted two of those treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty."

Re:Settled law in the United States

[bjartur]

Doesn't that mean that someone can copy every page in Wikipedia and setup their own competing website?

In fact, there's even a howto: How to mirror Wikipedia

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

GP suggested that the design of a building is a fact: it can be seen and measured. I don't think that will be the case. And inhowmuch a model of a building violates any design copyrights I don't know, a photograph at least doesn't. And it may change per jurisdiction,

(wvmarle here - too lazy to log in)

Re:Settled law in the United States

[RockDoctor]

But ... American copyright law doesn't apply outside America...

Are you sure?

Sounds like excellent reasons to not waste my time with American content, nor using American businesses. Eventually the country will collapse under the weight of it's debts and cease to be of relevance.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Sorry, I can't tell if you are disputing that distribution of a photograph of a building violates copyright on the building or if you are arguing about what kind of copyright is violated as in "design copyright" being some sort of specific sort of copyright. If the former - then you should read something like this page - if the later, well I'm not all that interested in nitpicking - suffice to say that photographs of a building can in many cases violate copyrights on the design of the building.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Khyber]

"I doubt that at the end of that course everyone could create a 3D model of a building."

We did much better, actually - all of us could reproduce any car we laid our eyes upon - I chose a Bel-Air.

Just because your education system sucks now doesn't mean mine sucked when I was in high school!

Ahh, CAD on a 266MHz Pentium Pro with 128MB of RAM and a 4MB Diamond Stealth GPU. Those were the days.

Re:Settled law in the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

"Raises the question" is a horrible replacement. "Begs the question" implies that the question is begging to be asked. "Raises the question" is flat and lifeless.

Better replacements are "warrants the question" or "demands the question".

Google Books?

[MichaelSmith]

I suppose google are now free to feed the yellow and white pages through the google books scanner. They can have my copy. I'm not using it. And I will be glad not to have to use the Sensis's own White Pages web interface

Re:Google Books?

[Architect_sasyr]

I'm wondering if this means we can reverse-lookup telephone numbers again (The Gray Pages or something to that effect)? We haven't been able to do that for a few years now but if someone wants to suck all the information in and distribute a DVD...

Re:Google Books?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely, there is other laws, privacy I think, that cover reverse phone directories...

Re:Google Books?

[rtb61]

In Australia they would now be free to gain the data from the white pages (you likely could transcribe the data and rekey, maybe even scan and OCR it for reproduction) but not to copy the yellow pages but they again likely can extract the data and reproduce that (yellow pages contains artwork, in the form of advertisements and the would be copyrightable ).

Non-fiction text books are a better example, whilst you are free to extract the facts and rewrite them in your own words you cannot copy the original creative presentation of the facts.

As for electronic factual databases, whilst the facts are not copyrightable, the interface to access, search and present those facts are. One would still have to wonder about purposeful errors, false created facts, if you copy those even just the data you would be infringing copyright as those entries are creative content. Rather odd isn't it, with regards to the law in affect, lies are copyrightable but the truth isn't. From this I gather that pigopolists can not be trusted with a monopoly on the truth but they have "carte blanche" on their speciality, lies ;D.

Re:Google Books?

[Zerth]

In the US, reverse phone directories have been available at public libraries for a long time, for land lines.

Unlike land lines, which require no permission to publish, cell numbers are prevented from being included in regular and reverse directories without subscribers' permission by the Wireless 411 act.

Re:Google Books?

[jbengt]

Unlikely, there is other laws, privacy I think, that cover reverse phone directories...

For any listing connecting names, phone numbers, and addresses that is available in a plain text (or otherwise unencrypted) electronic format it is trivial to do a reverse lookup.

Re:Google Books?

[Anonymous Coward]

Falsehoods as you describe would be indistinguishable on the merits and can be copied under fair use. Please cite case law to show falsehoods in action.

Re:Google Books?

[Philip_the_physicist]

I have heard from one of the former maintainers of graypag.es that there is special regulations preventing reverse-lookup directories if you take the information (directly or indirectly) from the national phone number database. If you got the information yourself, that would be legal, but that is totally impractical. I'm not sure if you're allowed to make a reverse database for your personal use (although it would be hard to prove you had done that), but it would take a lot of effort and hardly be worth doing.

Re:Google Books?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a TRAP!

That 'web interface' was designed to annoy, harass and intimidate users into believing that sensis (tm) is god (tm), or god (tm) is sensis (tm)

Don't go there without the adblock plugin

What about...

[concernedadmin]

... facts interspersed with opinions? Is there partial copyright in effect with only the opinion parts falling under copyright law?

Re:What about...

[JorDan Clock]

That's a collection of facts based on a creative work. This kind of ruling doesn't apply to that. The creative work is already copyrighted and thus protected from such reproductions.

Re:What about...

[wvmarle]

I think no question there as many works of art mention certain facts, or direct references to those facts. Assuming the facts are there to support the opinion, the work as a whole can be copyrighted.

That however would not prevent someone from taking the facts out of it and republish it. For example you may be able to copyright a telephone book, however everyone can take the telephone book, copy the facts, and republish in their own format. They can just not put the book on the copier and create their own copy.

Re:What about...

[nine-times]

The facts themselves aren't subject to copyright, but the work as a whole is.

So for example, a newspaper can pull facts out of another newspaper and then write their own story based on (and including) those facts. However, they cannot simply re-run the original story without permission. I believe that they can quote the original article in a reasonable way, like pulling out a couple lines from the original article, but they can't quote the whole article.

Ultimately it's not about what's "fact" and what's "opinion". You can't copyright an opinion either, as far as I know. You can only copyright the *expression* of fact or opinion. If I write an editorial expressing an opinion, you can write an editorial expressing the same opinion. You just can't directly copy my editorial. Instead you have to take that opinion and formulate it in your own way.

Re:What about...

[butlerm]

So for example, a newspaper can pull facts out of another newspaper and then write their own story based on (and including) those facts.

In the United States, there is a common law "hot news" doctrine which may prevent a newspaper from doing just that.

US Law

[Toonol]

May be worth noting that "collections of fact" have long been recognized as uncopyrightable in the US. However, if significant creative work went into filtering the facts in a certain way.. like I picked out all the funny-sounding names from the phone book... the resulting list may be copyrighted.

Re:US Law

[maxwell demon]

But if I make a list of all names which appear in your list, it's facts again, namely the fact which names appear in your list ...

Re:US Law

[MrNaz]

You're playing fast and loose with the definition of a fact. If you take your attempt here, then nothing is copyrightable, because it is a "fact" that the writing on the pages of this particular book are what they are, therefor nothing is copyrightable.

You can't just meta factualise the entire universe and render copyright law null.

Re:US Law

[Narcocide]

... but it was a good try.

Re:US Law

[maxwell demon]

You're playing fast and loose with the definition of a fact.

I'm using the normal, everyday definition of a fact. If the legal definition of a fact is different, that definition should be stated somewhere.

For example, say I'm creative when naming my child, can I then sue the phone book company for copyright infringement when it lists the name?

Re:US Law

[jklovanc]

A list of interesting names is not a fact in that it is formed by the creative selection of names by a person or group of people. In all probability no two lists created by different groups would be the same therefore there is creativity in the creation of the list.
One could publish something stating that a name was on the list because that is a fact but not just copy the whole list.

Re:US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and using that argument, I can freely copy, say, photographs (digital ones, anyway) by saying "the RGB values of the first pixel are XYZ" and so on. Or copy books by enumerating all the words they contain.

Or even copy ANY digital data by simply specifying whether any given position contains a one or a zero, and in fact, I have a very efficient bit-packed encoding for that information...

Somehow, I don't think this would fly, though.

Re:US Law

[maxwell demon]

A list of interesting names is not a fact in that it is formed by the creative selection of names by a person or group of people.

As soon as you created the list, it's a fact.

One could publish something stating that a name was on the list because that is a fact but not just copy the whole list.

So saying that one name is on the list is a fact. Saying the same about several names certainly is a fact, too. So with how many names does it stop being a fact? I'll answer that for you: Never. Stating a complete list of names on your list is a fact, too, just as stating a complete list of names of people living in Texas is a fact. It started to be a fact as soon as you created that list.

Re:US Law

[RichardJenkins]

Read the legal opinion (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1195336269698056315) your basing your ideas on. It explains how facts are not copyrightable, how compilations of facts can be, and how Rural's isn't. Very readable, but that's the thing about law - you do have to read allot to understand it. Otherwise how will you know if you've misunderstood it (like you did).

In your case, they explain "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts [like that original selection of funny names that you think you can copy], but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."

You can't copyright a name, no matter how creative it is (typically this is about brand names though).

Seriously, reading just a little is better than talking-out-your ass.

(Just in case you've really got muddled, this whole business about facts not being copyrightable doesn't mean that you can publish a document saying "it is a fact that the text of text of work X was ....." without violating the copyright on work X)

Re:US Law

[Attila Dimedici]

But if I make a list of all names which appear in your list, it's facts again, namely the fact which names appear in your list ...

The way the U.S. Supreme Court ruling reads, it is not possible to copyright facts that could (at least in theory) be obtained without any reference to the copyrighted work. So, the OP's list is probably not copyrightable, since it is theoretically possible to obtain the same list by consulting the phone book. However, if there was more to the OP's list than just names obtained from the phone book, you would not pass the legal test by "listing the names that appear in his list." If he could demonstrate that the only possible way that you could have obtained the information you are copying is by reference, even if only indirectly, to his list. For example if he had put his list in some order other than alphabetical that he thought emphasized how funny sounding the names were and your copy was in the same order.
So, I could make a list of the words that Tolkien used in "The Hobbit", but if I put them in the exact same order as he did, that would violate copyright (although in my opinion "The Hobbit" should no longer be under copyright).

Re:US Law

[masmullin]

Your missing the point.... its an opinion that the name is funny, and the list of funny names is entirely opinion.

Re:US Law

[Hognoxious]

But it's a fact that the set of names on the list is {...}.

At least logically. But logical != legal.

It'd be a rather easy loophole, as you could get round any copyright by creating a new book that says "It is a fact that such-and-such a book by so-and-so author says 'contents of original book go here' ". As such, the courts could well infer that using that loophole constitutes an intent to break or circumvent the law.

Re:US Law

[plantman-the-womb-st]

A list of interesting names is not a fact in that it is formed by the creative selection of names by a person or group of people.

As soon as you created the list, it's a fact.

Close, but wrong.

As soon as you created the list, it's a fact that you created a list. The list of facts doesn't suddenly become a fact in and of itself.

Re:US Law

[cpt kangarooski]

The way the U.S. Supreme Court ruling reads, it is not possible to copyright facts that could (at least in theory) be obtained without any reference to the copyrighted work.

That's certainly a possible outcome, but that's not what the case is about.

The main thing to remember is that copyright only protects works which are, among other things, original. A work is original if the author is who originated it. A fact exists regardless of an author, however. Merely discovering a fact, and being the first person to report upon it, does not mean that it originated with you. Facts are uncopyrightable because they are unoriginal, not because they are facts. (Much like the copyright in a derivative work only covers the original portions of that work, and not the material that was derived from a previous work, which is either covered under the previous work's copyright, or not at all)

I think that people here are getting too caught up in talking about facts, without recognizing the basis for the policy. Thus while it might be a 'fact' that the first word I wrote in this post is 'That's' and the second word is 'certainly,' and so forth, and so on, since I originated this post, rather than copying it, the parts I originated are not rendered uncopyrightable on the basis of being unoriginal.

If he could demonstrate that the only possible way that you could have obtained the information you are copying is by reference, even if only indirectly, to his list.

That doesn't matter. If the material is uncopyrightable, then how the second person gets it, or how the second person might have got it, is irrelevant. Copying uncopyrighted material is never infringing. There would have to be something copyrighted that was copied to give rise to infringement.

Re:US Law

[Attila Dimedici]

The point I was making (in response to a poster who was trying to use this type of ruling to find a loophole in copyright that is not there), is that according to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling a fact is independent of my publishing it and therefore can at least be theoretically obtained without reference to my publication.

Re:US Law

[cpt kangarooski]

Okay, but the important part is that the fact exists, independently of your reporting upon it, not whether it could be discovered independently. Even if it could not be discovered independently, so long as it doesn't owe its origin to you, it is uncopyrightable.

Re:US Law

[masmullin]

But it's a fact that the set of names on the list is {...}.

Yes they are on the greater list, however, if you simply copy my sublist of funny names you are violating my copyright because the only thing distinguishing the sublist is my opinion of what is funny. You're allowed to create your own list of funny names, but if you have the same list as me (or the list is significantly similar) you'll be violating my copyright, because I came up with the list of funny names first.

the loophole you point out is just rather silly. Youre right that the courts would view the loophole as an intent to break copyright law... we need not discuss this subject anymore.

Re:US Law

[Hognoxious]

What's obvious to one isn't obvious to another. Just remember this is a site where 90% of people think a cat can enter into a legally binding agreement.

MOD PARENT WAY UP

[Anonymous Coward]

... facts interspersed with opinions? Is there partial copyright in effect with only the opinion parts falling under copyright law?

very insightful indeed. i'd say that an individual fact like "the sky is blue" should not be copyrightable. but if you had a textbook or something that has a whole bunch of facts or theories or whatever, then you chose to organize them in that way, and i guess that itself is an opinion, right? i dunno. good question though

Re:MOD PARENT WAY UP

[Tim C]

The textbook is copyrightable, as these is creative work involved in taking the facts and presenting them in the text. The facts themselves are not copyrightable; it is not possible to prevent someone else from describing the same facts in their own words.

So, the fact that Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity is not copyrightable. A given description of it and of the process by which he developed it is, but feel free to write your own in your own words and publish that.

Re:MOD PARENT WAY UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This was tried in London in Dan Brown and the Baigent and Leigh guy. The judge ruled that history is not copyrightable (Even if you made the whole thing up!).

It's not the end of the world.

[serviscope_minor]

So, facts cannot be copyrighted. Good. That would be a sily road to go down. If companies want to be able to restrict access beyond copyright, they should stop trying to freeload off the government and make people sign contracts.

If that is not profitable, well then tough. Some things aren't.

Re:It's not the end of the world.

[sictransitgloriacfa]

Obviously it is not the end of the world - a similar decision was rendered in the U.S. in 1991, and the U.S. phone directory business has not gone down in flames.

Sounds like a sensible man

[Spy Handler]

this Aussie judge.

We should have Outback Steakhouse ship him to the U.S. in their next shipment and let him trim down our insane Disney-sponsored copyright laws.

Re:Sounds like a sensible man

[MichaelSmith]

Judges interpret the law. Going by some other US posters here the US may be ahead of Australia in this area. I hear sometimes about US Judges being strongly identified with their political background. While this can happen in Australia I don't believe it is as widespread.

Re:Sounds like a sensible man

[jonadab]

That would be redundant. Our "insane Disney-sponsored" copyright law in the US has already been in full agreement with this ruling for years.

Maybe Australian courts will confirm Bridgeman next.

Re:Sounds like a sensible man

[mindwhip]

Fact1: Mickey is a mouse
Fact2: To draw his ears you use 2 circles beside each other and a semicircle joining them below.
Non Fact: any actual drawing of 2 circles and a semicircle as described in fact2?

Re:Sounds like a sensible man

[jonadab]

You're using the word "fact" in a way that would not hold up in court, in either the US or Australia, or probably any other common-law country.

If you look at the Australian court ruling, we're talking about dry non-creative stuff like a list of all the phone numbers in a given area code and the names associated with each. Such things are not copyrightable in the US either, because absolutely no creativity is involved in creating them.

Re:Sounds like a sensible man

[sictransitgloriacfa]

While I agree that Justice Gordon is sensible, I'm pretty sure the Honorable Michelle Marjorie Gordon (photo) is not a man.

Re:Sounds like a sensible man

[Schmorgluck]

IANAL, but I think my grasp on civil-law legal systems is sufficient for me to add that such a use of the word "fact" would not hold there either.

Mention IceTV in summary but not DMS

[Wild Wizard]

Interesting that the summary mentions IceTV but fails to mention the exact same problem that DMS had with Telstra over their phonedisc product.

If someone would like to do some serious reading to find out why DMS lost but PDC won that might actually be useful.

Re:Mention IceTV in summary but not DMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't read up on DMS too much, but the main difference between the current case and DMS was that DMS never contested the copyright of the directories. They were arguing on other grounds.
Interestingly, the decision is this case isn't so much that facts aren't copyrightable, but rather that labor intensive and seemingly creative representations of such facts aren't necessarily worthy of copyright. The main gist from the Judge is that, with almost all the entire process of collating data, formatting text, laying out ads, etc being performed by computer, they couldn't determine that an actual human author or authors did enough intellectual or literary effort to qualify it for copyright.
The only things humans did was to fiddle with some checkboxes to make stuff bold, mechanically checking ads to ensure they fit set criteria, and ensuring that the computer spit out sane representations. Apparently that's not enough intellectual effort to afford the result copyright protection.

Re:Mention IceTV in summary but not DMS

[LukeWebber]

To be honest, I'd prefer that the phone book was not up for grabs. What happens is that people will take it and index it and then you get debt collectors and private investigators calling you and asking and asking questions about your neighbours. Illegal? Yes, but it happens. And anybody who knows your phone number can find out where you live. A win for common sense? Maybe, but also a loss for privacy.
And the suckers actually charge you extra not to list your number. Can't we have just a little bit of privacy? Sheesh!

Re:Mention IceTV in summary but not DMS

[demonlapin]

anybody who knows your phone number can find out where you live.

Only if they work for the government or the phone company. Just buy a prepaid cellular phone for cash - they can track you when it's on, but that's it.

Re:Mention IceTV in summary but not DMS

[LukeWebber]

My point is that anybody who has access to the white pages data can find out where you live from your 'phone number. It's a simple matter of indexing the data by 'phone number, which the Sensis service does not permit for privacy reasons.

Re:Mention IceTV in summary but not DMS

[demonlapin]

Again, that's true if you have a land line that's in the white pages. Cell phones aren't in that directory, especially not prepaid ones, and neither are VOIP lines - those are in E911, but not in the white pages.

What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/15/0513232 ?

Trivial Pursuit

[Anonymous Coward]

So *now* can I make that searchable, tagged web database of every question and answer from Trivial Pursuit? It'd be a boon for trivia nights.

Re:Trivial Pursuit

[darinfp]

Prior art.... Google.

Re:Trivial Pursuit

[Kalriath]

Sure, as long as you don't mention the trademarked term "Trivial Pursuit" anywhere.

Re:Trivial Pursuit

[Anonymous Coward]

He can mention Trivial Pursuit as much as he wants as long it's clear that it not an "official site".

Re:Trivial Pursuit

[Sowelu]

While the answers to the questions may be uncopyrightable facts, the collection of QUESTIONS, are not--they are clearly a creative work, because creative selection went into them. A phone book on the other hand, doesn't have the same creative element: "Who are all the people within this location" versus "What questions might be fun to make people guess".

Re:Trivial Pursuit

[argent]

No, because the individual questions and answers are copyrightable because they are NOT simply facts.

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this, but

[darinfp]

Why you bothered replying is beyond me...

On TV-guides

[Max Romantschuk]

IANAL, but if you ask me the time and name of the program is a fact. The description/synapsis/call it what you will, is not. So I guess it's OK to publish the asctual schedule of a channel, or scrape the channel's official guide. But I'm sure that scraping a publication's TV-guide and basically copying it is more of copyright infringement and less of publishing facts.

This does bring up an interesting issue. Pharmaceutical companies are apparently applying patents for genes these days. Aren't the DNA base sequences of any gene a fact if anything?

Re:On TV-guides

[John Hasler]

> This does bring up an interesting issue. Pharmaceutical companies are
> apparently applying patents for genes these days. Aren't the DNA base
> sequences of any gene a fact if anything?

Yes, and therefor, despite what the newsies say, it is not actually the genes that are patented.

Re:On TV-guides

[Sowelu]

Patents are not the same as copyrights.

Re:On TV-guides

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I understand it, a corporation will generally patent (not copyright) the process for checking for a particular gene or set of genes (not the genes themselves).

Re:On TV-guides

[Max Romantschuk]

Quite true. But I'm positive you can't patent fact. :D

How about databases?

[golodh]

As the parent poster notes, this ruling from down-under agrees with US legal theory on this issue. But what about databases?

For example ... Lexis-Nexus? And big chemical databases (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_database) like the Beilstein database (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beilstein_database)?

On the one hand I'm very glad that mere facts aren't patentable, but on the other hand if this means that anyone can slurp down your entire database and then resell it or even export it then it's less of a boon. This is why e.g. the EU came up with their "database directive" which expressly provides databases with copyright protection if they are "collections of facts that took significant effort to compile".

Not that that's ideal, because it e.g. lets public transport providers claim copyright on timetables (which they promptly abused in the EU until court-cases established that public transport providers had to draw uptime-tables anyway in order to make their networks run, and that it required negligible effort to put that stuff into a database afterwards). Likewise with ZIP codes in the EU: it may seem ridiculous but ZIP code databases are copyrighted there.

So what is the legal status of databases here? Does anyone know?

Re:How about databases?

[MrHanky]

One particular collection of facts, the fixture lists of English Premier League games, is copyrighted in the UK but uncopyrightable in the EU under the database directive. The legal status of databases here depends on where 'here' is.

Re:How about databases?

[mspohr]

What is a "fixture list"? It sounds like a list of hardware used to hold the ball or the sinks and toilets in the mens room (WC). Sorry, I'm not British.

Re:How about databases?

[kill-1]

I don't know about the US but in Germany and I think the rest of the EU, the "sweat of the brow" rule applies to databases.

Re:How about databases?

[phyrz]

4 : a settled date or time especially for a sporting or festive event; also : such an event especially as a regularly scheduled affair

Study the language dood.

Re:How about databases?

[vlm]

What is a "fixture list"?

Its more or less the thing that EA updates in its video games each year to get sports fans to pay another $50+

It sounds like a list of hardware used to hold the ball or the sinks and toilets in the mens room (WC).

Unlike a fixture list, that could actual add real value, if you're trying to replace a specific broken part with a compatible aftermarket part.

Sorry, I'm not British.

And for everyone else, there's google.

Re:How about databases?

[Anne Thwacks]

I don't know about the US but in Germany and I think the rest of the EU, the "sweat of the brow" rule applies to databases.

As an SQL programmer, I can vouch for "sweat of the brow" personally. Is there a ruling that DB4 code is worth more than SQL because of the extra amount of grief that went into debugging it?

Re:How about databases?

[mspohr]

Study the language dood.

What is this "language dood" that I should study? Google just says "Did you mean "Language Door"?

Re:How about databases?

[pdabbadabba]

Bear in mind that even if copyright law provides no protection to databases, a database owner can still choose to only allow you access to their database under a license that prohibits you from reselling the information (and I believe many large database owners do just this). So, what you can't enforce through copyright law you probably could enforce through contract law.

(I am a law student, not a lawyer)

Re:How about databases?

[Anonymous Coward]

One particular collection of facts, the fixture lists of English Premier League games, is copyrighted in the UK but uncopyrightable in the EU under the database directive. The legal status of databases here depends on where 'here' is.

In general EU law and EU courts supercede the UK law and courts all the current state of affairs proves is that nobody has yet pushed a legal challenge far enough (unless this is one of those very rare areas of EU law where the UK has an opt-out).

Re:How about databases?

[WCguru42]

on the other hand if this means that anyone can slurp down your entire database and then resell it or even export it then it's less of a boon.

If the methods used to access that data was not legal then they are breaking the law by redistributing it. If I have some fancy sculpture in my home that people want to collect all the facts about they are still not allowed to do it until I give them access to my house.

Re:How about databases?

[selven]

If one person leaks it out and doesn't get caught / is in the right jurisdiction / only has $25.72 total assets, that database becomes public for everyone, legally. It might work for a few large corporate applications, but not for phone books.

Re:How about databases?

[Kirijini]

The case on point is ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996), which is of additional note because it accepts shrink-wrap/click-wrap licenses as valid and enforceable.

The database owner may also prevent additional copying of the database (ie, if the database is "leaked" somehow) through trade secret laws, or through encryption and the DMCA's prohibition on bypassing such protections.

Re:How about databases?

[Fluffeh]

I don't know about the US but in Germany and I think the rest of the EU, the "sweat of the brow" rule applies to databases.

As an SQL programmer, I can vouch for "sweat of the brow" personally. Is there a ruling that DB4 code is worth more than SQL because of the extra amount of grief that went into debugging it?

Think of it this way: Lets say you complied a database simple atomic numbers, with a nice relationship flow between the tables. It was a good design, optimized space and the queries you were going to run on it. Can you copyright the design of your database? Yes. Can you copyright the final data that comes out of the database? No. What comes out of the database is facts, which now according to this judge (quite surprisingly a show of common sense) but you can certainly keep the rights to how you make your database work.

Re:How about databases?

[AVee]

Likewise with ZIP codes in the EU: it may seem ridiculous but ZIP code databases are copyrighted there.

They are still not copyrighted. That very instance of the database may be protected, you can't just rip it and use it for whatever you want. Not even of the database is publicly searchable.
But you can go out and start collecting that very same information on your own and create your own database. Once you've done that you can use that in any way you see fit.
What you can't do is wait till somebody else has done all the hard work and then just grab that for free, which seems fair enough to me.

Re:How about databases?

[cfulmer]

It varies country-to-country. The US doesn't recognize the "sweat-of-the-brow" doctrine, although there are moves in Congress to change that. US Copyright is based on "creative expression" -- if a work doesn't have any of that, then the work isn't subject to copyright. Most databases don't have that, so they're not subject to copyright. However, a database may have that creative expression in the selection and arrangement of the facts in the database. Also, note that if you store creative works in the database (a la Lexis, for example), then copying the entire database would also copy those works, and would be an infringement. Further, note that even though many databases are sold under 'licensing agreements,' the enforceability of those agreements is unclear since the states cannot themselves protect things outside of federal copyright law. And, contract law is state law. It's a big hole for database owners, which is why many of them sell access to the database, but do not sell copies of the database itself.

Football fixtures

[mfraz74]

Does this mean I'm now free to publish lists of football fixtures on my website? The FA emailed me a few years ago to say that the information is copyright.

Re:Football fixtures

[jklovanc]

I would say yes if you live in Australia or the US; a date and time that two teams will play is a fact and under this ruling a fact or list of facts is not copyrightable.

Re:Football fixtures

[mfraz74]

Unfortunately I live in the UK so I presume that ruling doesn't apply?

Re:Football fixtures

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Somerset is a bit backwards, but do you really think an Australian court ruling would apply to the UK?

Re:Football fixtures

[Rockoon]

The real question is, what if he posts these facts from the UK but they are hosted in Australia?

The copyright industry is already way ahead of you

[SmallFurryCreature]

The copyright industry is already way ahead of you. They have decided that this man should be shown as an example in courts around the world. There are a lot of courts, so they had to cut him up pretty small, but in a way, that only makes the example more clear.

Evil, it is a lot easier when you realize you have no soul.

Of course Financial Data cannot be published

[DrScotsman]

Financial Data isn't kept secret due to copyright laws, it's done so due to data protection laws. Surely I'm not wrong in assuming Australia has those? (Or the US for that matter, as I assume the submitter is from).

Re:Of course Financial Data cannot be published

[Xugumad]

I believe the submitter was talking about stock market prices. While end of day prices are readily available, high precision data (the sort of stuff you'd need if you're backtesting automated traders, for example) is fairly pricey. For example, CBOE back data:

http://www.marketdataexpress.com/servicePriceList.aspx

runs to about $200/month per symbol, or $1,250/month for all available options, for per-tick quotes. Of course, a lot of what you're paying for is the knowledge that the information is correct, and there are cheaper options (for example many real time data feeds come with some amount of historical data, and you can always collect information over time) if you're happy dealing with the data integrity issues yourself.

Re:Of course Financial Data cannot be published

[jklovanc]

Financial information in SEC filings and from stock tickers probably can be published and not copyrighted.

Re:Of course Financial Data cannot be published

[stormboy]

The suggestion in summary about financial data is, as Australian's might say, a "Furphy".

Sensitive data like your bank transactions are not protected through copyright, but trust arrangements/contract between parties, and privacy laws.

Financial data information, such as public company profit and loss statements would surely be reproducible without copyright constraints. Then again accountants have been known to be creative

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this, but

[cyber-vandal]

Give them their country back and bugger off back to Europe. I bet you have the nerve to complain about illegal immigrants too.

Conclusion: Free movies

[paxcoder]

One could argue they're just processed info about the light on different parts of the set at given times.
Australian govt. is weird.

Re:Conclusion: Free movies

[Fantastic Lad]

One could argue they're just processed info about the light on different parts of the set at given times.
Australian govt. is weird.

Hm. I was thinking the same thing, (including the 'weird' part), but then I realized, "Yes, but the movie set itself represents a creative manipulation of light, as does the post processing from color correction to CGI. Nobody in the public can go out privately and re-collect those same bits of light instance. They are gone. Whereas a phone book is different; anybody can compile their own list of phone numbers. They are not creatively modified. The only argument for creativity the phone companies might have a shot at selling is that they had to invent the phone numbers assigned to customers in the first place, but that's a stretch, particularly since that whole process is automated. Can a photo editing program lay claim to the light patterns emitted by the software?

In any case, the spirit of the law in both cases is quite different, and that's what it's all supposed to be about.

Interesting.

-FL

This is nice for Australia

[Sique]

In Germany and other EU countries there is special wording in the Author's Right (Urheberrecht) to protect databases even if the single entry in the database is not protected. So while in Germany facts are not protected by the Author's Right, databases of facts are.

Interestingly though since the addition of databases to the Author's Right in the 90ies the market share of EU based companies for databases has dwindled. This is probably pure coincidence.

The movie 2012

[Sneeze1066]

...was that fact? Just want to clarify before I download it.

Re:The movie 2012

[noidentity]

Of course a movie you download is a collection of facts. Basically, the file format states that "The first frame of the movie looks like this: [image]. The second frame of the movie differs from the first in the following ways: [list]. The third frame of the movie..."

Well, I'm off to download some collections of facts about a few movies, songs, and books.

Re:The movie 2012

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's crap. Don't download it.

Re:The movie 2012

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I think you can do that on 2012-12-22 (ISO Date, of course), provided that the world did end the previous day.

Financial data and what not are protected under

[VShael]

a different set of laws. Your bank doesn't keep your account details private because of copyright law.

Re:Financial data and what not are protected under

[GrubLord]

Obviously, yes - but what about the kind of data day-traders use, for instance?

Companies are charging a lot of money for what is essentially access to facts about the value of stocks, commodities and currency over time.

If someone were to pay for this service, get the data, and then make these same facts freely available via his or her website... would that be legal under this ruling?

Re:Financial data and what not are protected under

[therealkevinkretz]

That's the most interesting question in this thread so far. It only really applies to historical data, though. The expensive stuff is the real-time data, and I'd argue that its value lies as much in its timeliness as in the 'facts' it contains. I doubt that the product created by a system designed to collect and compile it so quickly would be considered just 'a list of facts'. You can find redistributable, freely-available fifteen-minute old data all over the place. But detailed historical data, say, every second of pricing from a time period ten years ago, isn't easy to find for free but would appear to be just a list of facts.

Re:Financial data and what not are protected under

[Attila Dimedici]

Obviously, yes - but what about the kind of data day-traders use, for instance?

Companies are charging a lot of money for what is essentially access to facts about the value of stocks, commodities and currency over time.

If someone were to pay for this service, get the data, and then make these same facts freely available via his or her website... would that be legal under this ruling?

Probably, unless of course the contract he signed to obtain said data explicitly forbade such usage (which it probably would). If the company providing that service did not have such a clause, they would probably decline to renew his contract when it was up (assuming of course that he were able to get it posted to his website fast enough to matter). If I were to subscribe to such a service and post the data to my website so that it was freely available the following day, I doubt the company providing the service would care.

Re:Financial data and what not are protected under

[Anonymous Coward]

Financial data in terms of individual accounts, yes.

OTOH, I'm expected to pay ~$500 for a history of stock prices, which is facts and not private (as these are publicly held companies traded on an open exchange).

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this, but

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is he had an aboriginal girlfriend who dumped him or got into a fight with an aboriginal dude in the local pub (probably Bowraville) last night and is feeling pissed off and wants to vent. But in my opinion, as disparaging as he is, he's trying to understand the cultural differences between the societies which is a lot more than most white people, especially those in the city are willing to do.

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this, but

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash, chump: everyone's ancestors stole the land their descendants (you) inhabit, with few exceptions. American/Canadian? Native Americans/Inuits. British/European? Your land has been stolen so many times and by so many people that it's pointless to recount a history of it. You are some kind of super-hypocrite, implying someone's a hypocrite for doing what do you. This ignores the fact that you advocate going out of your way to punish people for where they were born (something beyond their control), and going out of your way to reward others for equally unmerited attributes. I suppose you would like us to return to a society of aristocratic elite, hmm?

Piss off, troll.

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Nup. country is ours. If it was 'polically correct', I would suggest we invade the illegals too :)

So we can copy maps

[Anonymous Coward]

So if we take that literally, we can copy maps, text from encyclopedias, and non-fiction books I guess.

Re:So we can copy maps

[Attila Dimedici]

If the ruling is significantly similar to the U.S. ruling that found the same thing, the answer is no.

Re:So we can copy maps

[butlerm]

No. Maps are not facts, maps are representations of facts. Big difference. You can copy the actual facts, assuming you can tell what the facts are, but you cannot copy the representation of those facts, if there was any creativity, selection, or discretionary arrangement involved in creating that representation.

It is like the difference between a photo and what the photo is taken of. Photos are generally protectable by copyright, due to the creativity involved in choosing a time, place, angle, lighting, etc. Maps are similar, except with different creative elements, most notably selection.

just common sense

[l3v1]

I'd say this ruling is just following common sense. If you gather data that is already available, and put them in a database, that in itself should not be copyrightable. If you make some data representation from those, like charts, tables, or draw some conclusions that are not obvious, those should be copyrightable, since those are results of your own work. Nobody should be allowed to retain any rigths over anything that is just another pile of the same heap.

There was also a comment about hey, now we can copy maps, which I is totally flawed. Going along the line of my ideas above, a map is a representation of some data that is freely available, but since it's not a database, but a graphical interpretation and representation of that database, I don't have anything against retaining rights over that representation. The important thing is to keep in mind, that _anyone_ can make a map of hir/her own and sell it and retain rights over it. But one shouldn't be allowed to retain any rigths over the geographical data.

As I began with, I can only say, it's just common sense.

Re:just common sense

[Quantumstate]

But previously you would have to go out and do a survey yourself to make a map if the data is under copyright. Now your can use another map to get that data as long as you plot the data yourself. So it will be a great help for people wanting to make a map.

Re:just common sense

[butlerm]

You can't just copy the data in a digital map, unless the data is indistinguishable from the facts the data is a representation of, and there was no creativity, selection, and arrangement involved.

Facts are not copyrightable. With some few exceptions, representations are. In most cases, data is not a collection of facts, it is a representation of facts. The nature of what happened on the way from fact to representation can make the latter protectable by copyright in a manner the former is not.

Re:just common sense

[cdrguru]

Not sure about Australia, but UK has a rather funny law that says the government owns the ability to produce maps. Period. To go out and survey the land requires permission and a license. You are better off just licensing their data in the first place and save yourself all that trouble.

If Australia is operating under the same rules, then all map data for Australia is licensed by the government and you can't just go out and make your own survey.

There are a number of places like this in the world. I believe several countries in South America have similar laws. Mexico might as well, which is why getting detailed street maps for Mexico is rather difficult. Not to mention their awful way of naming streets.

How odd

[Anonymous Coward]

The materials on the rulings page linked in the story http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/44.html are all copyrighted.

How does this relate to gps?

[niftyguy]

How does this relate to gps databases?
Is it now legal to take the Tomtom (or Sensis) gps db for Oz, extract it and upload it to openstreetmap.org?

IANAL but gps data seems to me to fall under the category of not requiring a "creative spark" to compile.

Is gpsdrive about to become a useful application in Australia?

Re:How does this relate to gps?

[cdrguru]

Further, I'd say that the US data could be extracted in Oz and then sold in the US.

Without copyright republishing is perfectly permissible. Might as well make some money while you are at it.

Game records

[malevo]

How about collections of game records? For example a go or chess database.

Work and Investment should not be copyrightable

[erroneus]

In other discussions about databases being copyrightable in EU, I think it is foolish to allow databases to be copyrighted simply because of the amount of work and/or investment involved in the collection of data. There is a slippery slope to observe in the case of this sort of reasoning.

I have created a set of card faces for Gnome solitaire that features the characters of Southpark. I literally spent hours and hours vectorizing these characters where no such vector forms of characters could be found on the net at large. The project took perhaps 3 weeks to a month of after-work time. I committed considerable hours and effort tracing characters from bitmapped graphics. (Yes, I know exactly where this falls in terms of copyright violation.)

My point is that I do not consider my investment (of time) and work to be copyrightable. I do not consider my effort to be particularly creative.

I don't think the format of data or even the precision of data should be copyrightable. Digital street maps, for example, often sold at very extreme rates for GPS drive devices, should not be copyrightable. After all, they are not creative works and the work could be (and often is) duplicated by others and is essentially compilations of facts describing the streets.

Frankly, the whole idea of intellectual property has gotten out of hand.

Re:Work and Investment should not be copyrightable

[cdrguru]

As someone who used to work for one of the three digital map database companies in the world, I would offer that if this information were not copyrightable it would be difficult to justify the investment in producing them as they could simply be republished by anyone.

Trade secret would be a bit of a stretch and I don't see any grounds for patentability. So copyright is the only protection against redistribution they have.

I'd say the investors would have pulled the plug a long time ago without something to keep republishing from happening as that would pretty much eliminate the revenue from selling map data.

Re:Work and Investment should not be copyrightable

[erroneus]

While I understand that point of view and expected that response, I have also considered what a world would be like where map data was not copyrightable. I think we would see a system that actively employs the use of community as the source of data as well as trade organizations. There are already examples in place where this is the case.

Still, map data does tend to fall neatly into the definition of statistical and/or factual information. If it were creative in nature, we'd all be lost.

We most certainly need more sanity where intellectual property is concerned. In order to do that, many business models which currently exploit and even demand more of this insanity will certainly suffer from the game changing on them. This would be good for the public which largely respects their intellectual property and have been patiently waiting FOREVER for things to fall into the public domain while they never do. While I would prefer to look on such a return to sanity as a kind of revenge, it would really just be making things fair again and little more.

The Amiga Music Preservation project

[Ezel]

The Amiga Music Preservation project doesn't seem to recognize this which is why I refuse to let them take part of my own module-compilation. They are spreading the hard work of a lot of amiga-musician and then in some weird fashion refuses to let others use the fact-collection. I quote from their FAQ at http://amp.dascene.net/faq.php
Can I export part or all of AMP's composer database and use it in my website?
No way! AMP's composer database is the result of many years spent on gathering and sorting information. In order to avoid legal prosecution we recommend you not to include any part or mirror our database in your website.

Now, that's some crappy attitude.

Well then what about

[fyngyrz]

Our genes, chromosomes? Or those of a pig?

These are naturally existing chunks of objective reality, and a description of them is simply a collection of facts. All human speech and thought is metaphor anyway, so I think someone has made a distinction without a difference.

Re:Well then what about

[Thinboy00]

That's trade secret law IIRC. It's different. IANAL.

Underlying database of retail phone-directory apps

[YaHooL]

Long time ago, I used to work in a team that developed internal applications for a company that makes speech-recognition engines.
One time I was told that the company needs a Database containing histogram tables of European First and Last names, for each Country/Region in Europe.
This DB was needed for generating random data-sets with X - name couples (based on the relevant region histogram, pick X First and X Last names and then just concatenate them together).

For this purpose, I was given a retail DVD of a phone-book application.
Whatever DB format the application was using seemed to be encrypted or propitiatory (that's a logical or).
While the application query system was rather good (for this purpose), it did limit the amount of result fields you could mark for export (or copy), to something like 10 fields at a time.
So, I wrote a little tool (wasn't complicated) that automatically made queries and read each of the resulting pages.
For each result row, the first and last names were appended into separate text files of which file-names were linked to the query that produced them.
A perl script later, the Databse was ready.

Given such an application that allows you to export any field from it (even if it is indented that users would only do "manual" copies of small chunks).
Could a person who rips the full phone-directory, use it for commercial purposes?
For example, sell a module that enables users of eCommerce sites to have their Shipment details and Phone number fields be auto-completed (after filling the First Name,Last Name,Country,City fields).

Database right

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe we have database right for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right.

How about lies?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can't copyright "The sky is blue." But can I copyright "The sky isn't blue."?

Can false "facts" get around this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading stories about cartographers adding deliberate errors to their maps to prevent copying, wouldn't that be a workaround? Just one fake name in the phone book, if that name was copied it'd be copyright infringement and there would be a legal remedy. This would prevent phone book printers from limiting people from distributing collections with legitimate phone numbers, but would also prevent people from just straight up copying the phone book.

"Hot news" doctrine

[butlerm]

In the United States, there is a "hot news" doctrine that protects the distribution of time sensitive information like stock ticker prices to some degree, in addition to whatever contractual requirements which may be placed upon you by the source of the data themselves. As far as I know, this is a creation of the courts, and has no statutory basis in federal law. It is common law all the same, however.

NFL & MLB

[DrSkwid]

"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."

"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited,"

See also

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0304256103.shtml

http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-the_nfls_copyright_round_two.html

Re:NFL & MLB

[Kirijini]

As others in this thread have pointed out, "facts" concerning a copyrighted work are just as protected as the work itself. As in, the facts concerning the position of a dancer at various times during a performance are as protected as the whole choreography of the performance.

The issue with athletic events is whether or not the actual event ("performance") is copyrightable. If it is copyrightable, then such things as the unauthorized republishing of final scores, descriptions of plays or strategies, etc. might well be copyright infringement, unless saved by fair use. If athletic events are not copyrightable, then those same republished scores and descriptions are not infringements (though the video broadcast would probably still be copyrightable, as there was a director making creative choices about which video feeds to use for the broadcast, and the cameramen practicing their craft as well). In other words, the key issue isn't the uncopyrightability of facts, but whether the athletic event itself is subject to copyright.

The 2nd Circuit, at least, believes that athletic events like basketball games are not copyrightable. See NBA v. Motorola (1997) at 846. This seems to be the majority position, but there is however contrary case law from the 7th circuit: Baltimore Orioles v. Major League Baseball Players (1986). Nimmer, the preeminent legal scholar on copyright, argues that athletic events should not be copyrightable in his treatise, at 2.09(F).

Re:NFL & MLB

[drsmithy]

The issue with athletic events is whether or not the actual event ("performance") is copyrightable. If it is copyrightable, then such things as the unauthorized republishing of final scores, descriptions of plays or strategies, etc. might well be copyright infringement, unless saved by fair use. If athletic events are not copyrightable, then those same republished scores and descriptions are not infringements (though the video broadcast would probably still be copyrightable, as there was a director making creative choices about which video feeds to use for the broadcast, and the cameramen practicing their craft as well). In other words, the key issue isn't the uncopyrightability of facts, but whether the athletic event itself is subject to copyright.

Interestingly enough, live sports broadcasts are one of the few things it *is* legal to record at home in Australia, precisely because of their "live" (ie: not scripted/produced/"creative") nature.

So what this means

[cjsm]

So what this means is under Australian and American law, if some newspaper published that I was extremely bright, remarkably witty, and incredibly good looking, this would not be copywritable. However if the newspaper said the same thing about Brad Pitt, it would be.

TV Guides

[Doc Ruby]

So how do the compilers of TV show schedules like TV Guide keep people from freely redistributing them, to make software like MythTV work well?

See a lawyer before relying on this

[TekPolitik]

IAAL in Australia. The real rule is much more nuanced than TFS suggests. If you are planning to rip off somebody else's database, consult a lawyer first.

So what? It's wrong.

[Safety Cap]

"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited,"

And the best part is this is not true.

They can STATE whatever they want and it doesn't alter the law. Too bad many people don't know that.

FTFA:

The accused blogger must file a counter-claim or, after an unquantified number of complaints -- valid or otherwise -- the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.

"Unfortunately, I never filed the counter-claims," Pop Tarts Suck Toasted's Patrick Duffy told Wired.com. "For starters, you're right, it does seem like a lot of extra work, but mostly I just thought taking down the infringing MP3s would be enough to satisfy the complaint.

—(emphasis mine)

Not knowing the law - understandable
Not doing any research whatsoever (or at least consulting a lawyer!) when sent a takedown notice - F A I L

False Facts

[mrsaggy]

Many databases contain spurious entries designed to detect duplication. An extra Mr. Smith with a specific phone number helps the copyright owner detect people skimming the data. I've been told they do this with maps/GPS data. Explaining where that extra entry came from may be a little difficult.

Excpet 3 things to happen here

[jonwil]

1.Telstra will appeal to the next court up (full bench of the federal court IIRC)
2.Telstra will continue to send C&D letters to anyone who is using the information from the phone book (including and especially anyone who implements a way to search said information by phone number)
and 3.Telstra will lobby the government to pass new laws granting protection to phone books (with pressure comming from the TV networks to extend such information to program listings to overrule the IceTV case)

This was also settled law in Australia

[caitsith01]

But apparently a random Federal Court decision is newsworthy despite the fact that the High Court dealt with this issue in the IceTV case last year.

The Bible (c)

[eyendall]

Great news. Now I can go and copyright the Bible and other works of creative imagination.

One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented

[BugHappy]

Human DNA has been patented: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/22064243.html But DNA is hardly anything else as just a "collection of facts". Do you mean that these patents were illicit?

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this, but

[cyber-vandal]

I'm a Scot. Now I might have Viking or Roman blood but on the off-chance I don't could you please explain to me whose land I stole. I'm not a troll I was responding to the wanker above me insulting people who had their land stolen from them after about 30,000 years of continuous inhabitance.