3 ms·

This has been settled case law for decades thanks to sports almanacs. Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can

by mike_d 6y ago

This has been settled case law for decades thanks to sports almanacs. Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can be. If CNW had published a book, Google purchased it off of Amazon, and paid an intern to retype it in to fact boxes - that is clear copyright violation. The fact that Google bought the data from a third party data broker who scraped CNW does not absolve them of liability in my mind.

errantmind 6y ago
What you are saying about compilations makes sense, but was it a compilation in that sense? My interpretation was it was just a bunch of data spread over public pages on a website. It seems like if that constitutes a compilation, it would expand copyright by a lot
JimDabell 6y ago
> Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can be. It’s my understanding that this ceased to be true in the USA in 1991 and that a minimal degree of creativity is required [0]. Other countries have started following suit more recently. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
- arcticfox 6y ago
  IMO there's a huge difference between a list of names and numbers generated by a research team estimating someone's net worth, and a phone book. One is a list of informed estimates, the other is a list of (essentially) facts. Informed guesses are IMO essentially much longer pieces of creative content, just condensed into a number.
piscisaureus 6y ago
> Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can be. ... in the US. In the EU and UK there is separate copyright-like legislation that covers this, so-called "database rights". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right
mthoms 6y ago
I'm not sure the data in question here would qualify as "facts" like a batting average or win percentage would. These are researched estimates. Different outlets would come up with different numbers depending on the researchers and techniques they employ. Ergo it requires a degree of skill and creativity. But as you say, the point is moot. The collection itself should certainly be covered by copyright whether its contents are a mere collection of "facts" or not.

by mike_d 6y ago

errantmind 6y ago

What you are saying about compilations makes sense, but was it a compilation in that sense? My interpretation was it was just a bunch of data spread over public pages on a website. It seems like if that constitutes a compilation, it would expand copyright by a lot

JimDabell 6y ago

> Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can be. It’s my understanding that this ceased to be true in the USA in 1991 and that a minimal degree of creativity is required [0]. Other countries have started following suit more recently. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....

arcticfox 6y ago
IMO there's a huge difference between a list of names and numbers generated by a research team estimating someone's net worth, and a phone book. One is a list of informed estimates, the other is a list of (essentially) facts. Informed guesses are IMO essentially much longer pieces of creative content, just condensed into a number.

piscisaureus 6y ago

> Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can be. ... in the US. In the EU and UK there is separate copyright-like legislation that covers this, so-called "database rights". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right

mthoms 6y ago

I'm not sure the data in question here would qualify as "facts" like a batting average or win percentage would. These are researched estimates. Different outlets would come up with different numbers depending on the researchers and techniques they employ. Ergo it requires a degree of skill and creativity. But as you say, the point is moot. The collection itself should certainly be covered by copyright whether its contents are a mere collection of "facts" or not.