4 ms·
>Or is it republishing of the original data? If it's publishing _data_ then you're fine under regular copyright as it only protects artistic works and not thin
by pbhjpbhj 4y ago
>Or is it republishing of the original data?
If it's publishing _data_ then you're fine under regular copyright as it only protects artistic works and not things like data. You might fall shy of other IP legislation but not copyright.
YMMV, this is not legal advice and represents my personal opinion unrelated to my employment.
- fragmede 4y agoThe CFAA would be the thing to look out for.
- cmeacham98 4y agoThe "data" here is photographs, which all jurisdictions I'm aware of treat as coprightable.
- pbhjpbhj 4y agoFWIW in UK it's possible for works to be too generic to attract copyright, or to be slavish reproductions (eg as photos). ID images have their parameters dictated by technical needs - no smiling, plain background, even lighting, no eyewear, head only, face-on - and so leave no room for artistry. An ID photo might lack copyright. I know of no caselaw here (on copyright in ID shots) and am projecting from eg the "red bus" case (Temple Island v New English Tea).
- Mtinie 4y agoWhich makes this case even more interesting to me. Some percentage of those photos’ copywrites’ are owned by corporations rather than the pictured individuals. If it was simply a large group of selfies, I don’t expect much legal challenge from the allegedly aggrieved. But when companies with legal counsel get involved…
- messe 4y agoYep, in the EU you can run afoul of database rights. This is separate from copyright.