3 ms·

No but it’s okay to copy all the entry names in the encyclopedia and fill in the content yourself

by franklampard 6y ago

benley 6y ago
This is an excellent metaphor but now I am curious, is it literally true?
- nickspag 6y ago
  Probably not? The crux of the opinion seems to grant fair use because it enabled a "new and transformative use," which is a box that a different line of encyclopedias doesn't seem to check.
- ant1oz 6y ago
  Yes.
- shmageggy 6y ago
  Two distinctions come to mind: the encyclopedia text doesn't have a "functional purpose" in the same way as the implementation of an API does, and thus there isn't a market of users who have pre-existing skills with encyclopedia entries that they could put to use if the entries were copied to another platform. In my non-lawyerly reading of the first bit of the decision it seemed they leaned on those aspects quite a bit.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  Would have to be tested in court. Certainly, the fact that competing encyclopedias exist, and have for hundreds of years, with > 99% identical entry names (but of course, substantively different content), and that predicated not on any given invention or IP but rather the common use English language, would, I think, make the judges rather reluctant to rule differently even should there be 100% match in entries.
- franklampard 6y ago
  Yeah I was giving an analogy similar to what Google is doing, but I am not sure of the legality of the exact case
chris_wot 6y ago
Wikipedia already does this. For instance, there is currently a list of Australian Dictionary of Biography articles missing.[1] I maintain a reflist of women in the ADB who have no Wikipedia article.[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/To-do/Australian_Dictionary_of_Biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australi... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chris.sherlock/Australian_Women_In_Red/ADB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chris.sherlock/Australian...
Ekaros 6y ago
I think all entry names in encyclopaedia would fall under collection of facts that is not copyrightable... Same goes for recipes. I don't see how list of words existing and being used would qualify as work under USA copy-right. The entries themselves though are likely in many cases protected, but likely not all.

No but it’s okay to copy all the entry names in the encyclopedia and fill in the content yourself

benley 6y ago

This is an excellent metaphor but now I am curious, is it literally true?

nickspag 6y ago
Probably not? The crux of the opinion seems to grant fair use because it enabled a "new and transformative use," which is a box that a different line of encyclopedias doesn't seem to check.
ant1oz 6y ago
Yes.
shmageggy 6y ago
Two distinctions come to mind: the encyclopedia text doesn't have a "functional purpose" in the same way as the implementation of an API does, and thus there isn't a market of users who have pre-existing skills with encyclopedia entries that they could put to use if the entries were copied to another platform. In my non-lawyerly reading of the first bit of the decision it seemed they leaned on those aspects quite a bit.
lostcolony 6y ago
Would have to be tested in court. Certainly, the fact that competing encyclopedias exist, and have for hundreds of years, with > 99% identical entry names (but of course, substantively different content), and that predicated not on any given invention or IP but rather the common use English language, would, I think, make the judges rather reluctant to rule differently even should there be 100% match in entries.
franklampard 6y ago
Yeah I was giving an analogy similar to what Google is doing, but I am not sure of the legality of the exact case

chris_wot 6y ago

Wikipedia already does this. For instance, there is currently a list of Australian Dictionary of Biography articles missing.[1] I maintain a reflist of women in the ADB who have no Wikipedia article.[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/To-do/Australian_Dictionary_of_Biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australi... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chris.sherlock/Australian_Women_In_Red/ADB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chris.sherlock/Australian...

Ekaros 6y ago

I think all entry names in encyclopaedia would fall under collection of facts that is not copyrightable... Same goes for recipes. I don't see how list of words existing and being used would qualify as work under USA copy-right. The entries themselves though are likely in many cases protected, but likely not all.