I think you have that just right.
Regards
Matthew West (01)
On 29/10/2010, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I thought I had a handle on this, but the more people respond, the hazier
> the picture becomes.
>
> For clarity, would it be accurate to interpret the ruling as meaning:
>
> If some legal agent uses vocabulary V to codify a taxonomy. Then that
> taxonomy, *using* vocabulary V is copyrightable.
>
> Now, given that copyright law extends only to the expression of an idea and
> not the idea itself, then one would not be in violation of the (c) on the
> taxonomy(+V) to codify the taxonomy using a novel vocabulary, V2 - where
> perhaps there is a trivial 1-1 mapping between each element in V and V2? And
> consequently, the onus on 'protecting' the underlying theory or system of
> relations of the taxonomy falls to patent law.
>
>
> Or am I interpreting the Idea-Expression divide incorrectly and the new
> taxonomy(+V2) would in fact be considered a derivative of the former(+V)? If
> so, at what point (if at all) would a non-trivial mapping make the new work
> not a derivative?
>
> Thanks,
> Ali
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, sean barker
> <sean.barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> To throw further darkness on this discussion, it is clear that individual
>> words are not copyrightable, but a whole novel is. Similarly, I would
>> assume
>> that an individual classification statement such as "Socrates is a man" or
>> "All men are mortal" would be uncopyrightable, however that a complex
>> system
>> would be. Further, there is a distinction between the publisher's
>> copyright
>> on the form of a text, but that is separate from the author's copyright of
>> the text itself - for example, Shakespeare is out of copyright, but that
>> does not give me the right to photocopy a recently published edition of a
>> Shakespeare play.
>>
>> The question therefore is, at what point does a classification system
>> become copyrightable? (in the sense of an author's copyright, rather than
>> a
>> publisher's copyright) Or better, at what point does a collection of
>> classification statements become a copyrightable system? And at what point
>> does the overlap of one system with another become an infringement of
>> copyright? This question may become more vexed by the way that at some
>> level, the many individual statements of classification will be statements
>> of the obvious.
>>
>> A further complication is that in an ontology, one defines the set of
>> differentia between classes (the properties of the class) on a class by
>> class basis, and therefore one can infer the class
>> hierarchy without explicitly stating it. It would be an interesting
>> discussion as to whether an inferred classification system which is
>> identical to an explicit classification system are comparable in copyright
>> terms.
>>
>> Sean Barker
>> Bristol, UK
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.reseed.ca
> www.pinkarmy.org
>
> (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
> (02)
--
Sent from my mobile device (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|