3 ms·
Quite tangential from the content - at the start is "Its transcription and formatting as an e-text, however, is copyright 1995-1998" I thought that Feist v. Ru
by dalke 11y ago
Quite tangential from the content - at the start is "Its transcription and formatting as an e-text, however, is copyright 1995-1998"
I thought that Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991) established that 'sweat of the brow doctrine' was not grounds for copyright. Should I assume that the person who claimed copyright here was incorrect in making the claim?
- tzs 11y agoFeist established that there has to be creativity in something for it to be copyrightable. The level of creativity required is not very high. The Court said: To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. They also use the phrase "modicum of creativity" to describe the necessary creative level. Formatting can have sufficient creativity to qualify for copyright. Such copyright will only cover the formatting, not the underlying text. If someone were to take just the text, and format it themselves (by hand or by script), that should be OK. Taking his exact e-text formatting? I don't know. Without comparing the originals to his version, I have no idea if his formatting was obvious and mechanical, or if it required creativity.
- dalke 11y agoWell that was pleasantly easy to find - a copy of the original is at http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/6.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/6.pdf . I personally don't think there's creativity in this expression. If there is, then the flip side is that I change the format even slightly then it's also creative, and the underlying facts are not covered under copyright.