On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Andre Schnabel <andre.schna...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Rob,* > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Datum: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:13:40 -0500 >> Von: Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> > >> >> And I'm sure there is choice and in how one structures a telephone >> book as well. Alphabetical versus topical. Fonts choices. Consistent >> ways of abbreviating given names. But he courts have held that the >> facts expressed in telephone directory are not copyrightable. > > I tried to not comment - but it is really a shame to see people being such > ignorant. > > US copyright law is not the only law that is relevant here. Relevant is > the local law of the creator of the dictionary - and actually there *are* > countries where such work ist protected. German law is at least one > example for that. (This may sound stupid to you, but it is a simple > fact.) >
The jurisdiction of the creator only matters in the case of local infringement or in the context of international treaties. And I don't believe any treaties have recognized sui generis IP rights for collections of facts, i.e., databases. It has been discussed but there is no agreement. See the WIPO statement on this: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/databases.html -Rob
