4 ms·
Maybe the professionals know their job better than you do? Mere aggregations of facts are generally not copyrightable.
by fjsolwmv 8y ago
Maybe the professionals know their job better than you do? Mere aggregations of facts are generally not copyrightable.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoBut unauthorised re-use can be challenged as misappropriation - effectively unfair competition. https://www.ipiustitia.com/2013/12/retrospective-passing-off-in-united.html https://www.ipiustitia.com/2013/12/retrospective-passing-off... Which does suggest the copyright angle really wasn't the best one to take. There may be a good reason why that didn't apply here, but - not being a lawyer - I don't know what it is.
- kbutler 8y agoBecause of the conflict between the public interest in allowing copying facts and the misappropriation doctrine, that doctrine is generally limited to "hot news", and citing the source is generally sufficient even there. The article you linked includes various restrictions on the doctrine: "highly time-sensitive", "in direct competition", "rend[ering] [the] publication profitless" The wikipedia page on the misappropriation doctrine has a various links and commentary about the narrowing of its application: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misappropriation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misappropriation_doctrine Particularly, from the Second Circuit NBA vs Motorola (1997) "Such concepts are virtually synonymous for wrongful copying and are in no meaningful fashion distinguishable from infringement of a copyright." https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/105_F3d_841.htm https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/105_F3d_841.htm Other circuits have followed similar principles.