5.0456 Word Lists and Copyright (3/72)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 18 Nov 1991 19:03:46 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0456. Monday, 18 Nov 1991.


(1) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 18:47:41 est (15 lines)
From: corder@ted.cs.uidaho.edu
Subject: Re: 5.0452 Query: Word Lists and Copyright (1/44)

(2) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 15:00:03 +0200 (EET) (30 lines)
From: LBJUDY@VMSA.TECHNION.AC.IL
Subject: RE: 5.0452 Query: Word Lists and Copyright (1/44)

(3) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 13:47:39 EST (27 lines)
From: Lorne Hammond <051796@UOTTAWA>
Subject: Re: 5.0452 Query: Word Lists and Copyright (1/44)

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 18:47:41 est
From: corder@ted.cs.uidaho.edu
Subject: Re: 5.0452 Query: Word Lists and Copyright (1/44)

an excellent question and i haven't read of a case that deals specifically
with copyright of a list of words, so i don't know if it has been tested.
i would very much like to know if you receive a difinitive answer. my
guess is that the list is copyrighted, because i beleive i have read that
telephone directory lists are copyrighted.

linda corder
corder@ted.cs.uidaho.edu
university of idaho
computer science dept.
moscow,idaho 83843
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------37----
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 15:00:03 +0200 (EET)
From: LBJUDY@VMSA.TECHNION.AC.IL
Subject: RE: 5.0452 Query: Word Lists and Copyright (1/44)

This question has recently been discussed in library circles
(I think it was on the discussion group PACS-L though am not sure).
There has recently been a U.S. court ruling that collections of
information in random or alphabetical order, such as telephone
directories ("white pages") are NOT copyrightable and anyone can
use the data and massage it for whatever purpose they choose.
This caused a flurry of speculation that you could take a
dictionary, phone book, etc., rearrange the information,
sort it by various criteria, and so on, and remarket it without
having to pay anything to the original producer, because the
only copyrightable material in it is the "added value" you
have given it. As the U.S. law stands at present, this is
apparently the case.

Since the English language has several times as many words in
it as the ca. 100-130,000 included in most dictionaries, every
dictionary is a "selection". If you remove the "added value"
given it by the original producer (in this case, the arrangement
by difficulty of spelling), it would seem that you have removed
any claim that the contents are copyrightable.

There are a few other librarians on Humanist apart from me:
perhaps they remember more details about this whole discussion,
and what list's archives can provide more information?

Judy Koren, Haifa
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------32----
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 13:47:39 EST
From: Lorne Hammond <051796@UOTTAWA>
Subject: Re: 5.0452 Query: Word Lists and Copyright (1/44)

I also have a copyright question.
If I build and distribute an electronic index to a journal is that
public domain? My intellectual property? The journals?

If you go with the argument that it is the author's property, given
that no funding clouds the issue, what happens if the file was built
out of scanned title pages? These are the property of the journal.

If the argument is that they are the journals, then that what is the
difference between a scanned file and a hand done index card system?

Taken far enough then an historian does not own their notes?

The issue reminds me of a legal tussle over audio sampling. One group
who have never been taken to court argue that by combining an original
with a second source they create something which has never existed before.

So, if I scan and then edit journal title pages into an WP file by author,
article title, journal, issue, page numbers, have I breached copyright?

Lorne Hammond
History
University of Ottawa