[Foundation-l] copyright question about data

[Neil Harris]

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Edward Peschko wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:38:42PM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Andre Engels wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>> On Apr 11, 2005 11:42 PM, Edward Peschko <esp5 at pge.com> wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>> What's the legal status of data retrieved from non-public domain 
>>>>> sources?
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that text that is retrieved from copyrighted 
>>>>> materials is
>>>>> copyrighted, but how about data and figures that deal with common 
>>>>> interest
>>>>> topics? Can you really copyright the amount of wheat grown in a 
>>>>> year in
>>>>> bangladesh, or the number of accidents in a year on california roads?
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> No, you cannot copyright the data itself. What is copyrighted is the
>>>> *representation* of the data, while the *selection* of the data MIGHT
>>>> be copyrighted.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> This is a very important distinction.  The selection issue can be 
>>> difficult, and is most applicable when you are using the same subset 
>>> of data as someone else.  If you and the other person are providing 
>>> complete data that is not a breech since there is only one way to 
>>> have everything. :-)  Also an obvious form of representation of the 
>>> material (such as alphabetical order) is not copyrightable.
>>>   
>>
>> How about augmented data? Ie: say someone has a set of data that 
>> you'd like
>> to keep in its entirety, but you add some features that text cannot 
>> possibly
>> have (like, say links to supporting papers for important datapoints, 
>> or zoom-in on graphs). Is that considered copyright infringement?
>>  
>>
> Augmenting data helps to establish the fact that you are not limiting 
> yourself to the original author's selection process..  In many of 
> these cases determining whether there has been a breech of copyright 
> will never be a black and white situation.  We really are looking at a 
> balance of probabilities.
>
> Ec
>
>
I am not a lawyer, but, in the United States at least, isn't Feist v. 
Rural relevant?

-- Neil