To: | doug@xxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Simon Spero <ses@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:07:12 -0400 |
Message-id: | <AANLkTi=xDAohTLPFfZ5=Xkp7AEXQUkfGESSQ9s5As+Yj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
It's not just an argumentation style - it's the law :-) Numbers qua numbers are not copyrightable where those numbers are not creative expressions. See Bender v. West Pub. ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1274699.html ); the issue also is also disposed of in Feist itself. The "controversial part of the ruling" is not part of the ruling- it's just dicta. The issue isn't addressed in any depth, since it's not part of decision. Simon On Oct 28, 2010 12:58 AM, "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 5:37 PM, Simon Spero wrote: >> Some people have suggested that I post a pointer to the decision in > "AMERICAN DENT. ASSN. v. DELTA DEN. PLANS ASSN., F,3D 977 (7th Cir, > 1997)" >> The opinion is from the 7th circuit (the cool IP circuit :-) > > This is an interesting argumentation style. > * Articles are copyrightable, but others may express the same facts in > their own language. > * What is copyrighted is text, not the facts therein expressed. > * Whole ontologies are copyrightable. [This would mean their text, since > text, not a set of ideas, is copyrighted.] > * The long textual descriptions of the categories are copyrightable. > [Other expressions of these ideas would not be covered.] > So far, this was strongly argued, and probably not controversial. > > But then the controversial part of the ruling is presented, not only with > no supporting argument, but weakly modifiedby "we think". They don't sound > too sure of their findings: > > "we think that even the short description and the number are original > works of authorship." > > If the short description is not a phrase that is common in the field, then > it would be copyrightable. Paragraph 6 gives an example that appears to be > a "short description", although it is relatively > long, and shows how it could be reworded in multiple ways. However, more > general short descriptions from higher up in the taxonomy might not be so > complex. > > The argument about copyrighted numbers moves away from copyrighting text to > copyrighting the assignment of a code to a concept. > "The number assigned to any one of the three descriptions could have > had four or six digits rather than five; guided tissue regeneration > could have been placed in the 2500 series rather than the 4200 series; > again any of these choices is original to the author of a taxonomy, and > another author could do things differently. Every number in the ADA's > Code begins with zero, assuring a large supply of unused numbers for > procedures to be devised or reclassified in the future; an author could > have elected instead to leave wide gaps inside the sequence. A catalog > that initially assigns 04266, 04267, 04268 to three procedures will over > time depart substantively from one that initially assigns 42660, 42670, > and 42680 to the same three procedures." > > The creativity discussed here is not the creativity of creating new numbers > that have never been used before, but of assigning those numbers to [types > of] procedures. Certainly, the result is part of the whole copyrighted > work, just as the names of characters in a novel are. An author can > choose many names, but for some creative reason selects specific names. > Does this mean the individual names of characters are copyrighted? > > Copyright does not preclude an indexer from going through a novel and > specifying for each character which page(s) in the work s/he appears on > and writing a short description of the character. Wouldn't an analysis > of an ontology that describes each of its categories and the associated > category name (i.e., code value) be similarly not precluded? > > I don't see any argument along these lines in the opinion. > > -- doug foxvog > >> Opinion was written by Easterbrook, but Posner can't write them all. > Well, he could if he wanted to, but he probably had to rescue Chuck > Norris, or something. >> >> ------ >> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/126_F3d_977.htm >> >> [1] This case presents the question whether a taxonomy is > copyrightable. [...] >> >> [4] Any original literary work may be copyrighted. The necessary > degree of "originality" is low, and the work need not be > aesthetically pleasing to be "literary." Feist Publications, Inc v. > Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345-46 (1991). Term > papers by college sophomores are as much within the domain of > copyright as Saul Bellow's latest novel. See Bleistein v. Donaldson > Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903). Scholarship that explicates > important facts about the universe likewise is well within this > domain. Einstein's articles laying out the special and general > theories of relativity were original works even though many of the > core equations, such as the famous E = mc^2, express "facts" and > therefore are not copyrightable. Einstein could have explained > relativity in any of a hundred different ways; another physicist > could expound the same principles differently. >> >> [5] So too with a taxonomy - of butterflies, legal citations, or > dental procedures. Facts do not supply their own principles of > organization. Classification is a creative endeavor. Butterflies may > be grouped by their color, or the shape of their wings, or their > feeding or breeding habits, or their habitats, or the attributes of > their caterpillars, or the sequence of their DNA; each scheme of > classification could be expressed in multiple ways. Dental > procedures could be classified by complexity, or by the tools > necessary to perform them, or by the parts of the mouth involved, or > by the anesthesia employed, or in any of a dozen different ways. The > Code's descriptions don't "merge with the facts" any more than a > scientific description of butterfly attributes is part of a > butterfly. Cf. Nash v. CBS, Inc., 899 F.2d 1537 (7th Cir. 1990) > (discussing the fact-_expression_ dichotomy). There can be multiple, > and equally original, biographies of the same person's life, and > multiple original taxonomies of a field of knowledge. Creativity > marks the _expression_ even after the fundamental scheme has been > devised. This is clear enough for the long description of each > procedure in the ADA's Code. The long description is part of the > copyrighted work, and original long descriptions make the work as a > whole copyrightable. But we think that even the short description > and the number are original works of authorship. >> >> Simon >> > > > > > ============================================================= > doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org > > "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great > initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours." > - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. > ============================================================= > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ > To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Webs and Fabrics, Kingsley Idehen |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Copyright in Taxonomies: Leading case in US law (ADA v. Delta Dental), Ed Barkmeyer |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Copyright in Taxonomies: Leading case in US law (ADA v. Delta Dental), John F. Sowa |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Copyright in Taxonomies: Leading case in US law (ADA v. Delta Dental), Ed Barkmeyer |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |