On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: Maybe (if I answered that I'd really be giving legal advice). But if you took 10 different lists of 50 co-ordinates and put them in one list, then picked the 20 or so that you find interesting from that big list (maybe even reducing the number of significant digits in the coordinates first), it might be less likely to be a derivative (I still would feel uncomfortable giving a direct yes or no answer, though). And if 20 different people working independently each pick one co-ordinate, that might not constitute copying or preparation of a derivative. Between copying one and copying the whole list, it's pretty grey area. Even copying the whole list is grey area. Anthony

Steve Bennett wrote: In other words the selection was made before the source of GPS co-ordinates was consulted. That would point strongly in favour of public domain information. Ec

On 5/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Sounds right to me. I was basing my answer on the selection being the copyrighted aspect. If the selection has already been made through some other mechanism which avoids copyright infringement, then the collection copyright doesn't matter. Anthony

On 5/11/06, Ben Lowe <ben.lowe(a)gmail.com> wrote: Phone books are not eligible for copyright because there is no creativity involved in choosing which phone numbers go in (everyone in a city) or what way they are arranged (alphabetical order). If a collection of facts contains a creative selection or arrangement, it is copyrightable. All of this is based on US law. Anthony

Matt Brown wrote: Right. And as, in this case, we are picking our own selection from the list and rearranging it completely, I see no reason to assume we'd be infringing on anyone's copyright. Even if we were reproducing all the coordinates on the list, I'd still see no problem as long as we weren't basing our criteria of inclusion for such coordinates on them being included on that particular list. -- Ilmari Karonen

On 5/11/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: There *is* a precedent. "Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. in the Southern District of New York. In that case, the court initially misapplied British law to determine whether the subject matter met the originality requirement for copyright protection. Upon reconsideration, the court "corrected" itself by conceding that U.S. law governed the originality issue." http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/yu-2001-04-all.html Feist is a United States Supreme Court ruling based on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not trumped by any copyright treaty nor is it trumped by any foreign law, and the fact that the material was created in a different jurisdiction is irrelevant. This is backed up by a whole host of US court rulings. Anthony

On 5/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: Yes, I wish the developers of the web had gone to more trouble to make http:// invisible to users, and to discourage the use of www. etc. And I'm also amazed how many companies seem unaware that the www. on the front of their names is redundant. Their advertising would be snappier with just "tcl.fr" rather than "www.tcl.fr" for instance. The talk page for the article is usually the place, though personally I find such mentions a bit tacky. Steve

On 5/12/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, I know. But it's very often the case, and even for companies that always advertise with the www. Definitely a special case. :) I'm really talking about the millions of bogstandard company.com sites though. I actually think as well that companies that attempt to publish sites that involve slashes would do better to set up redirects and advertise a version with a fake subdomain: product.company.com rather than company.com/products/product or something. But anyway. Steve

On 5/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: Who or what is Aggers?

On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote: A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home Service, m'lud. [[Jonathan Agnew]] to be precise. I made a redirect for you :-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 12/05/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: Nobody important. :P Rob Church

On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:59:07 +0100, you wrote: '''Delete''' bandcruft. Oh, wait... Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway &lt;f.crdfa(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Oh, that just reeks of <s>US</s> UK centric POV. Don't assume that just because you <s>Americans</s> Brits know all about someone then the rest of the world will too. Don't force your culture on me man! -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:57:39 -0500, you wrote: I always wonder how they can take seriously any game which takes less than three days to reach a conclusion... Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG