Sam Blacketer wrote:
The Cunctator cunctator at
gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at
spamcop.net> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
In this case, the criterion for list membership is
"has been on the Top
Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation
than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes. Like saying
it was No. 1 in the charts. But, as with the charts, including the
entire list violates copyright.
Huh? You keep repeating this, but the evidence for the claim just isn't there.
I am not a copyright lawyer (thanks be to God after reading this thread)
but it is quite clear that this list is a violation of copyright.
The sad thing is that even if everyone who has had something to say in
this thread were a copyright lawyer the opinions would have been just as
divided.
The decision
to put cars in various sections of the 'Cool Wall' is a creative process.
Yes.
Copying the results of this creative process in its
entirety is therefore
a violation of copyright.
Maybe. Are we copying the information or the presentation. If it is
the information it is not protected. If it is the presentation it very
well could be. The "merger principle" essentially states that a
copyright cannot prevent the use of information. A piece of Lexmark
software that effectively prevented the use of third-party ink
cartridges was ruled uncopyrightable on that basis.
The copyright rests in the compiling of a list
by arbitrary criteria; compiling a list by objective criteria would not be
copyright.
The copyright does not rest in the act of compiling as much as it does
in the compiled product. I don't think it matters whether the criteria
are objective or arbitrary. An objective criterion can be creative or
original.
The Stanford guide to Copyright and fair use is clear:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.ht…
"the work must be original -- that is, independently created by the
author. It doesn't matter if an author's creation is similar to
existing works, or even if it is arguably lacking in quality,
ingenuity or aesthetic merit. So long as the author toils without
copying from someone else, the results are protected by copyright.
Yes. Two identical works can both be protected independently as long as
neither was copied from the other. This cannot be a practical issue
except in the case of very short material. The argument is most often
raised in relation to musical passages. In our present case, if for the
sake of argument we assume that the list is protected, a person in the
US who was unaware of the British TV programme and come up with his own
independent but identical list would be entitled to his own separate
copyright protection. Of course, that's a highly improbable situation.
Finally, to receive copyright protection, a work must
be the result of
at least some creative effort on the part of its author. There is no
hard and fast rule as to how much creativity is enough. As one
example, a work must be more creative than a telephone book's white
pages, which involve a straightforward alphabetical listing of
telephone numbers rather than a creative selection of listings."
What we have here is a creative selection of listings.
That depends on whether you consider "all" to be more creative than an
alphabetical listing. A selected subset of the list is more likely to
be creative than all of them. Who created the list is a factor too.
The material did not exist in list form untilt our own Wikieditor got
involved. This is why I asked before: If we had applied our category
process to this problem would we still have the same copyright issue?
Ec
Ec