10 ms·

I wonder if their argument is somewhat similar to the "database right" - the common example being a telephone directory. There's no copyright in the mapping bet

I wonder if their argument is somewhat similar to the "database right" - the common example being a telephone directory. There's no copyright in the mapping between names and phone numbers, but there is in the specific database of them. (IANAL, don't take this as gospel!) So while the original artefact may be long out of copyright, are they under the impression that their scan is somehow a new work or some kind of copyrightable derivative? I do love the way this came about -- first an bland statement that they derive profit from licensing, followed by (legitimately) asking for the data to support that claim under FOIA. Fantastic!

thaumasiotes 7y ago
A telephone directory is the standard example (in the US) of a work in which there is no intellectual property right at all. Are you thinking of something else, or perhaps a different country? https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Reading the wikipedia summary, it looks like the key points of the decision are: - The association between an individual phone number and an individual name is an uncopyrightable fact. - A collection of uncopyrightable facts may nevertheless be copyrightable, given the editorial creativity involved in compiling those facts. - But the phone book involves no editorial discretion whatever; it is a list of every subscriber to the company (no discretion over what data is or isn't included), in alphabetical order (no discretion over what order the data is presented in), which the company is legally required to produce.
- philpem 7y ago
  I think I've picked a bad example! I was thinking along the same lines you explained -- that the facts wouldn't be copyrightable, but the overall work might be. To that effect - the scan produces a point-cloud. If you repeated the scan, you'd get almost the same point-cloud. Thus, the point-cloud is a fact. But the process of taking that point cloud produces a work, given the creativity involved in cleaning it up and checking accuracy, then making it into a model fit for release. I was under the impression that the phone book's appearance and layout might be copyrightable (trade dress/look and feel), though that's more likely a trademark issue than a copyright one.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > given the creativity involved in cleaning it up and checking accuracy This opinion isn't informed by anything, but I feel like the more effort you put into making sure your point cloud is accurate, the more fact-like and therefore uncopyrightable the point cloud becomes.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

A telephone directory is the standard example (in the US) of a work in which there is no intellectual property right at all. Are you thinking of something else, or perhaps a different country? https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Reading the wikipedia summary, it looks like the key points of the decision are: - The association between an individual phone number and an individual name is an uncopyrightable fact. - A collection of uncopyrightable facts may nevertheless be copyrightable, given the editorial creativity involved in compiling those facts. - But the phone book involves no editorial discretion whatever; it is a list of every subscriber to the company (no discretion over what data is or isn't included), in alphabetical order (no discretion over what order the data is presented in), which the company is legally required to produce.

philpem 7y ago
I think I've picked a bad example! I was thinking along the same lines you explained -- that the facts wouldn't be copyrightable, but the overall work might be. To that effect - the scan produces a point-cloud. If you repeated the scan, you'd get almost the same point-cloud. Thus, the point-cloud is a fact. But the process of taking that point cloud produces a work, given the creativity involved in cleaning it up and checking accuracy, then making it into a model fit for release. I was under the impression that the phone book's appearance and layout might be copyrightable (trade dress/look and feel), though that's more likely a trademark issue than a copyright one.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > given the creativity involved in cleaning it up and checking accuracy This opinion isn't informed by anything, but I feel like the more effort you put into making sure your point cloud is accurate, the more fact-like and therefore uncopyrightable the point cloud becomes.