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

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

[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.