On 18 May 2010 10:43, Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/05/2010 08:25, Seb Bacon wrote: >> >> HI, >> >> On 18 May 2010 08:00, Francis Davey<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Example: football fixtures lists aren't subject to a database right >>> (because the league doesn't have to expend much effort on verifying or >>> obtaining them since they have them already as part of running the >>> league, but they do get copyright because there's creative >>> intellectual effort involved in putting them together (so the High >>> Court was convinced). >>> >>> I'm quite ill at the moment so I have no idea whether what I am saying >>> makes sense, but hopefully it does. >> >> Yup, makes sense. >> >> I was wondering about this football fixtures thing. What if, once a >> week, I asked 20 fans (one for each premiership team) when their next >> team's fixture is, and put that into a database? >> >> Presumably then I'm assembling a new database of facts myself? > > Yes, but that's not relevant in this case because, as Francis says, it isn't > the database right which is at issue. What matters here is that the fixture > list *copy*right belongs to the league, and copyright is still infringed > even if the content is obtained via one or more intermediaries.
I find that quite interesting, and quite strange. If I'm going to see my team play next week, and I mention this fact in my blog, is that infringement of copyright? Or is that covered by fair use? I find it hard to get my head around where something stops being a fact and starts being something else. Seb -- skype: seb.bacon mobile: 07790 939224 land: 020 8123 9473 _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
