3 ms·

"Just numbers" well not quite. They are data which can be interpreted as information. This is like saying books are just a collection of letters. This link

"Just numbers" well not quite. They are data which can be interpreted as information. This is like saying books are just a collection of letters. This link may be informative and provide a US context. Sorry I don't have a more content specific reference. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/63139/public-dataset-without-license-what-is-allowed https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/63139/public-da...

paulmd 7y ago
Phone books are actually legally just a collection of numbers and are not considered a creative work, because there is nothing creative about the mere act of collating them. Thus, they cannot be copyrighted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... If NYT provides a "value add" here beyond mere aggregation and deduplication they are probably copyrightable. Otherwise they probably don't hold a copyright here (although they may attempt to claim it, just like RTS did).
- xyz0 7y ago
  > The data is the product of dozens of journalists working across several time zones to monitor news conferences, analyze data releases and seek clarification from public officials on how they categorize cases. > In most instances, the process of recording cases has been straightforward. But because of the patchwork of reporting methods for this data across more than 50 state and territorial governments and hundreds of local health departments, our journalists sometimes had to make difficult interpretations about how to count and record cases. The "value add" here is original reporting. I highly recommend reading the README in the repo, specifically the "Methodology and Definitions" section: https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data#methodology-and-definitions https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data#methodology-and-def.... There is no way that NYT employees were able to use that license/language without having the NYT in-house team of lawyers thoroughly vet it first.
- chapium 7y ago
  Interesting!

paulmd 7y ago

Phone books are actually legally just a collection of numbers and are not considered a creative work, because there is nothing creative about the mere act of collating them. Thus, they cannot be copyrighted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... If NYT provides a "value add" here beyond mere aggregation and deduplication they are probably copyrightable. Otherwise they probably don't hold a copyright here (although they may attempt to claim it, just like RTS did).

xyz0 7y ago
> The data is the product of dozens of journalists working across several time zones to monitor news conferences, analyze data releases and seek clarification from public officials on how they categorize cases. > In most instances, the process of recording cases has been straightforward. But because of the patchwork of reporting methods for this data across more than 50 state and territorial governments and hundreds of local health departments, our journalists sometimes had to make difficult interpretations about how to count and record cases. The "value add" here is original reporting. I highly recommend reading the README in the repo, specifically the "Methodology and Definitions" section: https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data#methodology-and-definitions https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data#methodology-and-def.... There is no way that NYT employees were able to use that license/language without having the NYT in-house team of lawyers thoroughly vet it first.
chapium 7y ago
Interesting!