4 ms·
> It's a "fact" that a book has specific words in a specific order, yet we're not allowed to share that fact with other people without legal repercussions. Tal
by tenebrisalietum 4y ago
> It's a "fact" that a book has specific words in a specific order, yet we're not allowed to share that fact with other people without legal repercussions.
Talking about the order of words in text X is not the same as a reproduction of text X.
Example:
Original: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
Reproduction: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
Talking about the order: In the sentence beginning with the following fair-use excerpt "The quick brown", the word "fox" precedes "dog".
> I'm just saying that the idea that PII could be copyrightable doesn't seem THAT crazy to me
It would be awesome, because then I could license out my address and collect royalties any time it is used or mentioned.
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y agoThe first word of the sentence is "The". The second word of the sentence is "quick". The third word of the sentence is "brown". The fourth word of the sentence is "fox". The fifth word of the sentence is "jumped". The sixth word of the sentence is "over". The seventh word of the sentence is "lazy". The eighth word of the sentence is "dog". Eight facts. Would replicating an entire book like this violate the copyright? The entire text is reproduced in order, there's just a bunch of junk added. I suspect courts would rule that it is a copyright violation.
- joshribakoff 4y agoYea because your “fact” is literally a reproduction of the creative work with superfluous additions. Instead, if you publish a list of books and their unique word count it would be a collection of facts - and someone can copy your list (including mistakes) because your list isnt covered by copyright.
- salawat 4y agoProducing a Mona Lisa with a mustache would therefore be a reproduction with superfluous additions then, eh?
- tenebrisalietum 4y agoThat is a derivative work, unless parody.