jonathon <jonathon.bl...@gmail.com> writes: > On 03/20/2018 08:45 AM, Ole Streicher wrote: > >> The exception used here is that facts are not copyrightable. > > US copyright law has a creativity requirement. Just how much > "creativity" is required is ambiguous. > > European copyright law typically has a "seat of the brow" component,
At least german copyright requires creativity. > which means under European Copyright law, it would copyright. (That EU > directive doesn't throw out copyright on "sweat of the brow" grounds.) It does. It defines an exhaustive list of what is copyrightable (for databases). Chapter II (Copyright), Article 3: | 1. In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of | the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the | author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by | copyright. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their | eligibility for that protection. So, no "sweat of the brow" or such (for copyright, suis generis is different). >> Positions and movement parameters of celestial bodies, presented in > their natural form (to keep the use of JPL-DE data as example) are bare > > The creativity here is: > * Which bodies are included; > * How frequently are the co-ordinates listed - hourly, daily, weekly, > monthly, annually, etc.; > * What unit of measurement is used for those co-ordinates; > * What is the starting point of the listings; > * What is the ending point of the listing; This is all not artificially selected. >> A (US) court decision that compilations of facts requires a minimum of >> originality to be copyrighted (in that case it was a telephone book; a >> time-sorted list of planet positions is the same). > > Astrolabe, Inc. v Arthur David Olson and Paul Eggert > Massachusetts District Court 1:2011cv11725 > implies that a case to the contrary can be made. Astrolabe dismissed the lawsuit, so no court decision was made. In wich way does this imply that Astrolabe could claim copyright? >> Is this enough material to claim an exception? > Still doesn't cover those judicial domains in which "public domain" is > not a legally recognised thing. I don't say it is "public domain". I state that is is not copyrighted. That is not the same. Best regards Ole
