RE: Not copyrighting facts (RE: copyrighting FACTS???)

["Laurie Urquiaga" <Urquiagal@lawgate.byu.edu>]

[MOD. NOTE:  Could readers contribute some examples of sole source
purveyors facts, *where no one else is allowed to copy or use them?* I'm
coming up short -- that is, it's certainly easy enough to think about
facts that are just too cumbersome to copy, such as India's census data,
but one could if one wished to with such facts. Thanks.]

Rick, you're right, EXCEPT in the case where there is only ONE source of
the facts, and that source is the protected database.  In such cases,
there is no independent way of collecting or creating an alternate
resource using one's own 'sweat.' You may not be worried about these 'rare
exceptions' to the rule, and I don't know how common they would be, but I
do worry that they might become more common if the law made them more
profitable. Laurie

Laureen C. Urquiaga
Associate Library Director for Access Services
Law School Copyright Coordinator
urquiagal@lawgate.byu.edu

>>> rickand@unr.edu 10/29/03 4:19:15 PM >>>

> But when you peel away the language of the operative sections, it
> essentially does just what you say it does not do: create copyright-
> type restrictions on the use of elements of databases that are
> not currently covered by copyright.

It depends on what you mean by "elements of databases."  If by "elements"
you mean "facts," then I think you're mistaken.  Whatever its weaknesses
as a piece of legislation, nothing in HR 3261 would grant the owners of
databases exclusive rights of publication, distribution, public display,
etc. over any of the facts contained in their databases.

Rick Anderson
rickand@unr.edu 

___