4 ms·

His entire argument seems based on his assertion that Google has copyright to search results. I think they probably don't, for two reasons: first, there's no c

by Vivtek 16y ago

His entire argument seems based on his assertion that Google has copyright to search results. I think they probably don't, for two reasons: first, there's no copyright notice on search result pages. Second, a search result is probably a database under copyright law, and databases (like the phone book) can't be copyrighted.

tzs 16y ago
> first, there's no copyright notice on search result pages Irrelevant. There is no legal requirement in most countries to put a copyright notice on a copyrighted work. > Second, a search result is probably a database under copyright law, and databases (like the phone book) can't be copyrighted. Databases can be copyrighted as compilations. The typical phone book is not copyrightable because it is insufficiently creative, not because it is essentially a database.
narcissus 16y ago
Except that first, you don't have to explicitly show a copyright notice for something to be copyrighted. By default, a work is copyrighted. You can explicitly give up a copyright, but not putting a notice is not that. Secondly, and I don't really know the 'state of play' of 'database copyright' across various countries but one thing is for sure: a phone book is a database of facts. Search engine results are a database of 'creativity'. The first link you see when you Google something is not 'the best result' as a fact. If it were a fact then surely Bing, for example, would know, for a fact, that that is the best result for that search. ie. they would also return the same 'fact'.
51Cards 16y ago
Note: the results of a search are not a database per say, they are an interpretation of a database. At risks of falling down the analogy hole again, it's somewhat like an artist's work is an interpretation of the material he uses. He doesn't copyright the clay, but he inherently owns copyright of what he produced from it. Like I feel Google does with their search results of a database of websites (as does DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc.)
angusgr 16y ago
Also, that there's no transmission of the results page. There's a URL with a search query in it, and any URLs that the user clicks on from that page. So any copyright would have to apply to the string showing in the user's browser address bar. Not quite as clear-cut.

by Vivtek 16y ago

tzs 16y ago

> first, there's no copyright notice on search result pages Irrelevant. There is no legal requirement in most countries to put a copyright notice on a copyrighted work. > Second, a search result is probably a database under copyright law, and databases (like the phone book) can't be copyrighted. Databases can be copyrighted as compilations. The typical phone book is not copyrightable because it is insufficiently creative, not because it is essentially a database.

narcissus 16y ago

Except that first, you don't have to explicitly show a copyright notice for something to be copyrighted. By default, a work is copyrighted. You can explicitly give up a copyright, but not putting a notice is not that. Secondly, and I don't really know the 'state of play' of 'database copyright' across various countries but one thing is for sure: a phone book is a database of facts. Search engine results are a database of 'creativity'. The first link you see when you Google something is not 'the best result' as a fact. If it were a fact then surely Bing, for example, would know, for a fact, that that is the best result for that search. ie. they would also return the same 'fact'.

51Cards 16y ago

Note: the results of a search are not a database per say, they are an interpretation of a database. At risks of falling down the analogy hole again, it's somewhat like an artist's work is an interpretation of the material he uses. He doesn't copyright the clay, but he inherently owns copyright of what he produced from it. Like I feel Google does with their search results of a database of websites (as does DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc.)

angusgr 16y ago

Also, that there's no transmission of the results page. There's a URL with a search query in it, and any URLs that the user clicks on from that page. So any copyright would have to apply to the string showing in the user's browser address bar. Not quite as clear-cut.