9 ms·

You can't copyright a list of facts. I'm confused about what they have run in to? Maybe they should take some of the money they have raised and talk to a lawyer

You can't copyright a list of facts. I'm confused about what they have run in to? Maybe they should take some of the money they have raised and talk to a lawyer.

esjeon 4y ago
You can if you curate the list. Curating requires collecting and processing information, which often can be expensive.
- ars 4y ago
  Not in the US you can't. Even if you curate the list, a list of facts can never be copyrighted, only creative expression can be copyrighted. But other countries have different rules. See here for all the details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
  - whatever1 4y ago
    So I can just buy a Bloomberg terminal, start broadcasting real time stock prices and collect a fee?
    - ars 4y ago
      Certainly, unless you sign some kind of contract with Bloomberg. (Realistically they probably make you sign.) Stock prices can not be copyrighted.
    - htrp 4y ago
      Bloomberg may not allow you to redistribute those same prices and terminate your membership. But stock prices are pretty much public knowledge (no one is coming after you for licencing for quoting a price at someone)
      - tomatocracy 4y ago
        Delayed prices for publicly traded stocks are generally available freely. Real time prices and order book though are not, not to mention prices for anything traded OTC like many bonds, swaps, etc.
    - ineedasername 4y ago
      Different situation. You don't buy a terminal, you license it. The license can dictate what you're allowed to do with the data. Rebroadcast the data and you may be just fine on copyright or any other IP, but you violate the license so Bloomberg cancels it.
  - esjeon 4y ago
    Yeah, things may differ b/w countries. But the Wikipedia article you linked mentions this: > In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor wrote that copyright can apply only to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc.—not to the information itself. So, a list of facts still can be creative and valuable to the society. INAL, but such works should be protected by copyright, or what's the point of copyright in the first place.
    - ars 4y ago
      Copyright is not like patents. If you arrive at the same result, by a different method, then even if the result is identical, there is no copyright violation. So "the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc." is very weak. You can copy all the data, and then make your own choice on what to include (for example "everything I can find"), and you would not be violating the copyright. The quote you gave is for things like making artwork based on certain patterns or letters in the data. But it won't help you if your creative choice is "everything" because there is no creativity there. > So, a list of facts still can be creative and valuable to the society A list of facts is not creative, it's simply work. And yes, it might be valuable, but that's not how we decide if something is copyrightable. > or what's the point of copyright in the first place. For creativity, rather than effort.
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      What that means is that if you write a list of e.g. “Top 10 tennis players in my opinion”, then you can hold copyright over that. But if you write “Top 10 tennis players by rating” then you can’t as that’s not a creative expression.
- contravariant 4y ago
  I think just collecting also counts. I don't think you can own rights to something other people collected and curated though. Though you can own rights to the individual components, but in this case that would be the specific price of something, which doesn't seem like it should be subject to copyright.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sdflhasjd 4y ago
Yes, I could understand (if not also somewhat disagree) with it regarding photos, but "and data"? What does that entail?
michaelt 4y ago
The cease & desist mentions Asda [1] and [2] says "Asda chose NielsenIQ Brandbank, their existing digital content provider for 13 years" So I'd wager the C&D came from Brandbank - who presumably supply product photos and product data (barcode, pack size, and all the other data like nutritional information you'd find on the packet if you were browsing in store) [1] https://www.trolley.co.uk/imgs/cease-and-desist-letter.png https://www.trolley.co.uk/imgs/cease-and-desist-letter.png [2] https://www.brandbank.com/asda-accelerates-their-rich-content-strategy/ https://www.brandbank.com/asda-accelerates-their-rich-conten...
- aaron695 4y ago
nl 4y ago
You absolutely can copyright lists of facts in most jurisdictions outside the US In the US it is pretty hard[1], but most other jusdictions find that if the list has some "creative" or "work" element (ie, it isn't just a list of everything) then it can be under copyright (eg [2]). [1] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/lists-directories-and-databases/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/lists... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/national/list-makers-on-solid-copyright-footing-20020611-gdfcvn.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/list-makers-on-solid-copyrig...
gumby 4y ago
That's true in the USA but this is in the UK.
paxys 4y ago
> You can't copyright a list of facts Says who?
rlpb 4y ago
Nobody said it was copyright specifically. However: "A database right is a sui generis property right, comparable to but distinct from copyright, that exists to recognise the investment that is made in compiling a database, even when this does not involve the "creative" aspect that is reflected by copyright.[1] Such rights are often referred to in the plural: database rights." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right
- thayne 4y ago
  And I thought IP law in the states was bad.
- mahkeiro 4y ago
  Yes but it doesn't prevent you to build your the exact same copy as long as you don't use the other DB as a source. Scraping the info yourself is perfectly fine. That's also the reason why people add "mistakes" to their DB as a kind of watermark.
  - jahewson 4y ago
    But they are (unwittingly) using the other DB as a source. The data they're scraping turns out not to have been created by the supermarkets in question but sourced from a third party database and published under license on the supermarket websites.
    - bencollier49 4y ago
      Which raises a very interesting legal question: If the data is recompiled, despite having come from another source via an intermediary (who are using that data to describe the products they are selling), is it still subject to the database rights? How about we try out a reductio ad absurdam: I'm going to start a startup. Our business model is to license the information on customers' websites, and then license it back to them in turn. This then means that anyone who uses our services in the UK can sue for copyright on lists of facts obtained by screen scrapers, as they've been through our database copyright washer. Think flight prices, hotels, cars, anything. Is that a viable business model? If not, why not?

You can't copyright a list of facts. I'm confused about what they have run in to? Maybe they should take some of the money they have raised and talk to a lawyer.

esjeon 4y ago

You can if you curate the list. Curating requires collecting and processing information, which often can be expensive.

ars 4y ago
Not in the US you can't. Even if you curate the list, a list of facts can never be copyrighted, only creative expression can be copyrighted. But other countries have different rules. See here for all the details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
- whatever1 4y ago
  So I can just buy a Bloomberg terminal, start broadcasting real time stock prices and collect a fee?
  - ars 4y ago
    Certainly, unless you sign some kind of contract with Bloomberg. (Realistically they probably make you sign.) Stock prices can not be copyrighted.
  - htrp 4y ago
    Bloomberg may not allow you to redistribute those same prices and terminate your membership. But stock prices are pretty much public knowledge (no one is coming after you for licencing for quoting a price at someone)
    - tomatocracy 4y ago
      Delayed prices for publicly traded stocks are generally available freely. Real time prices and order book though are not, not to mention prices for anything traded OTC like many bonds, swaps, etc.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    Different situation. You don't buy a terminal, you license it. The license can dictate what you're allowed to do with the data. Rebroadcast the data and you may be just fine on copyright or any other IP, but you violate the license so Bloomberg cancels it.
- esjeon 4y ago
  Yeah, things may differ b/w countries. But the Wikipedia article you linked mentions this: > In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor wrote that copyright can apply only to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc.—not to the information itself. So, a list of facts still can be creative and valuable to the society. INAL, but such works should be protected by copyright, or what's the point of copyright in the first place.
  - ars 4y ago
    Copyright is not like patents. If you arrive at the same result, by a different method, then even if the result is identical, there is no copyright violation. So "the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc." is very weak. You can copy all the data, and then make your own choice on what to include (for example "everything I can find"), and you would not be violating the copyright. The quote you gave is for things like making artwork based on certain patterns or letters in the data. But it won't help you if your creative choice is "everything" because there is no creativity there. > So, a list of facts still can be creative and valuable to the society A list of facts is not creative, it's simply work. And yes, it might be valuable, but that's not how we decide if something is copyrightable. > or what's the point of copyright in the first place. For creativity, rather than effort.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    What that means is that if you write a list of e.g. “Top 10 tennis players in my opinion”, then you can hold copyright over that. But if you write “Top 10 tennis players by rating” then you can’t as that’s not a creative expression.
contravariant 4y ago
I think just collecting also counts. I don't think you can own rights to something other people collected and curated though. Though you can own rights to the individual components, but in this case that would be the specific price of something, which doesn't seem like it should be subject to copyright.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sdflhasjd 4y ago

Yes, I could understand (if not also somewhat disagree) with it regarding photos, but "and data"? What does that entail?

michaelt 4y ago

The cease & desist mentions Asda [1] and [2] says "Asda chose NielsenIQ Brandbank, their existing digital content provider for 13 years" So I'd wager the C&D came from Brandbank - who presumably supply product photos and product data (barcode, pack size, and all the other data like nutritional information you'd find on the packet if you were browsing in store) [1] https://www.trolley.co.uk/imgs/cease-and-desist-letter.png https://www.trolley.co.uk/imgs/cease-and-desist-letter.png [2] https://www.brandbank.com/asda-accelerates-their-rich-content-strategy/ https://www.brandbank.com/asda-accelerates-their-rich-conten...

aaron695 4y ago

nl 4y ago

You absolutely can copyright lists of facts in most jurisdictions outside the US In the US it is pretty hard[1], but most other jusdictions find that if the list has some "creative" or "work" element (ie, it isn't just a list of everything) then it can be under copyright (eg [2]). [1] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/lists-directories-and-databases/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/lists... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/national/list-makers-on-solid-copyright-footing-20020611-gdfcvn.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/list-makers-on-solid-copyrig...

gumby 4y ago

That's true in the USA but this is in the UK.

paxys 4y ago

> You can't copyright a list of facts Says who?

rlpb 4y ago

Nobody said it was copyright specifically. However: "A database right is a sui generis property right, comparable to but distinct from copyright, that exists to recognise the investment that is made in compiling a database, even when this does not involve the "creative" aspect that is reflected by copyright.[1] Such rights are often referred to in the plural: database rights." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right

thayne 4y ago
And I thought IP law in the states was bad.
mahkeiro 4y ago
Yes but it doesn't prevent you to build your the exact same copy as long as you don't use the other DB as a source. Scraping the info yourself is perfectly fine. That's also the reason why people add "mistakes" to their DB as a kind of watermark.
- jahewson 4y ago
  But they are (unwittingly) using the other DB as a source. The data they're scraping turns out not to have been created by the supermarkets in question but sourced from a third party database and published under license on the supermarket websites.
  - bencollier49 4y ago
    Which raises a very interesting legal question: If the data is recompiled, despite having come from another source via an intermediary (who are using that data to describe the products they are selling), is it still subject to the database rights? How about we try out a reductio ad absurdam: I'm going to start a startup. Our business model is to license the information on customers' websites, and then license it back to them in turn. This then means that anyone who uses our services in the UK can sue for copyright on lists of facts obtained by screen scrapers, as they've been through our database copyright washer. Think flight prices, hotels, cars, anything. Is that a viable business model? If not, why not?