In British/Irish Law, a 'white pages' phone book is not copyrightable in spite of its being a 'collection of facts'. this is because it is something that is a byproduct of managing a telephone system. I am not sure about the golden pages (which business listings, with advertising). David.
2008/9/29 Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Actually, I'm pretty sure a phone book is not, in the US, in general, > copyrightable. > > I don't believe US law has any special protection for "collections of > facts". The canonical introductory intellectual property class example, > which happens to be about a phone book in fact, is Feist v. Rural Telephone > Service. Which in fact even has it's own wikipedia page: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural > > Jonathan > > Shawn Boyette wrote: > >> Individual facts or datum are not copyrightable, but "collections of >> facts" -- particular expressions of data -- are. This is what makes >> phone books, databases, and the like subject to copyright. >> >> P.S. N.B. IANAL >> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Interestingly, outside the US it's somewhat more possible to claim >>> copyright >>> on "factual data" than inside the US, Europe for instance has types of IP >>> and copyright protection for databases that the US does not. >>> >>> But basically, the answer is that nobody knows for sure, not even the >>> lawyers. >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> Bryan Baldus wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:17 PM, Nate Vack wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Huh. They claim copyright of these records. I'd somehow thought: >>>>> 1: The federal government can't hold copyrights >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The page [1] states: >>>> >>>> "Copyright" >>>> "Records in the MARC Distribution Services originating with the Library >>>> of >>>> Congress are copyrighted by the Library of Congress for use outside the >>>> United States. Subscribers are granted copyright permission to >>>> selectively >>>> redistribute records outside the United States; contact LC prior to any >>>> distribution." >>>> >>>> So, in the U.S., they are not copyrightable, but outside the U.S. some >>>> copyright claim might be justified. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2: As purely factual data, catalog records are conceptually >>>>> uncopyrightable >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> For the most part, personally I would agree with this, at least for >>>> individual records (though some parts of the record, like the 520 >>>> summaries, >>>> might contain enough original creativity that could be considered >>>> copyrightable). Others might believe otherwise, at least as it pertains >>>> to >>>> the collection of the records as a whole--for example, OCLC's copyright >>>> claims on their database of records. >>>> >>>> ########################## >>>> >>>> On the Fred 2.0 records, aside from their age, I wish they were >>>> available >>>> in MARC 21 format rather than XML with NFC encoding. When I tried to use >>>> MarcEdit to convert the files from XML to MARC 21 (January 2007), I ran >>>> into >>>> issues with character encodings. The files also seemed to lack header >>>> lines >>>> like: >>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >>>> <collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim";> >>>> >>>> [1] <http://www.loc.gov/cds/mds.html#lcaf> >>>> >>>> Thank you for your assistance, >>>> >>>> Bryan Baldus >>>> Cataloger >>>> Quality Books Inc. >>>> The Best of America's Independent Presses >>>> 1-800-323-4241x402 >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Jonathan Rochkind >>> Digital Services Software Engineer >>> The Sheridan Libraries >>> Johns Hopkins University >>> 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Jonathan Rochkind > Digital Services Software Engineer > The Sheridan Libraries > Johns Hopkins University > 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu > -- David Kane Systems Librarian Waterford Institute of Technology http://library.wit.ie/ T: ++353.51302838 M: ++353.876693212
