[Wikipedia-l] derivative works (Galoob v. Nintendo)

[Ray Saintonge]

Mark Williamson wrote:

>There was an attempt to pass a bill through congress to protect
>databases and collections of information (such as phonebooks... would
>it include a dictionary though?) under copyright, but it didn't pass.
>
>So currently, I can make my own phonebook using the database from the
>phone company, sell it at $1mil each, and not be penalised.
>
Dictionaries have their own set of problems.  The Webster was frequently 
in court during the late 19th century over infringements of its 
copyrights.  It lost some significant cases.  Cookbooks also fall into 
this class of works that are really a reflection of a society's 
collective knowledge.  If I invent a dictionary definition that is 
identical to what is found in a published dictionary I am not infringing 
their copyright.  If that published dictionary is an obscure one I may 
never have seen it, and my definition is original it's good.  Often the 
definition may be the only one reasonably possible.  For many kinds of 
works it is highly improbable that such a thing would happen.  
Dictionaries and cookbooks are exceptions.  In the area of music (rather 
than lyrics) cases often hinge on whether the defendant was familiar 
with the plaintiff's work.  A definition in a modern paper dictionary 
may itself be copied from an older public domain work, and therefore be 
non-copyrightable.  Copying a single definition can also be fair use. 

Patterns of behaviour thus become more significant if one is seeking to 
establish the infringement of copyrights in a dictionary.  It would be 
difficult to establish such patterns when many editors are working 
independently. 

Original definitions do present a different problem.  If someone 
generates a new definition based solely on his own limited experience 
with life that definition can be grossly inaccurate; that speaks to the 
reliability of the work that contains it, which for us is Wiktionary.

Ec