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

[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]

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

[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

[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: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.

The movie 2012

[Sneeze1066]

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

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)