On 11/05/06, Ben Lowe <ben.lowe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure a lawyer such as Mr. Abramson or a font
of knowledge such as Mr.
Smith can confirm this, but it is my understanding that lists of factual
information are ineligible for copyright; a work must be an "original work
of authorship." Phone books, for instance, are not eligible for copyright.
I would imagine this list falls under the same blanket of ineligibility (an
insecurity blanket?).
Lists of factual information *may* be ineligible for copyright *in the
United States* in circumstances where they are *definitely not
creative*.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no precedent as to whether or
not this applies to material which was created and copyrighted in a
different jurisdiction; it's tempting to say that the ruling
essentially annuls noncreative foreign copyrights, but that would seem
to conflict (at the very least) with the spirit of a whole host of
copyright treaties. And the site in question is British, with less
lenient positions on what is the minimum level of creativity...
Just a note of caution.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk