It's my understanding that "sweat of the brown" does not create a copyright at all. That was the entire argument behind the claim that phonebooks had no copyright protection. Similarly pure indexes have no copyright protection since they exhibit no creativity at all. Bad news for indexers.
In a message dated 4/25/2011 10:58:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
I would expect that to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, jurisdictions that includes some kind of "sweat of the brow" doctrine would probably protect translations. What jurisdiction are you referring to?
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
It's my understanding that "sweat of the brown" does not create a copyright at all. That was the entire argument behind the claim that phonebooks had no copyright protection. Similarly pure indexes have no copyright protection since they exhibit no creativity at all. Bad news for indexers.
It depends on the country (as Thomas said). This was the major issue behind the National Portrait Gallery drama in 2009. The UK and other European countries do count "sweat of the brow" labors as eligible for copyright while the U.S. does not.
MZMcBride
Hello,
2011/4/26 MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
It's my understanding that "sweat of the brown" does not create a copyright at all. That was the entire argument behind the claim that phonebooks had no copyright protection. Similarly pure indexes have no copyright protection since they exhibit no creativity at all. Bad news for indexers.
It depends on the country (as Thomas said). This was the major issue behind the National Portrait Gallery drama in 2009. The UK and other European countries do count "sweat of the brow" labors as eligible for copyright while the U.S. does not.
I don't know any other European country other than UK which count "sweat of the brow" labors as eligible for copyright.
MZMcBride
Regards,
Yann
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org