On 2009-01-20 16:54, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg writes: > > On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote: > > > > Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as they are not > > > creative (the basis of copyright) > > That's incorrect in the U.S.; what is copyrightable is an *original > work of expression fixed in some medium*. "Original" is closely > related to "creative", but it's not the same. The emphasis is on > novelty, not on the intellectual power involved. So, for example, you > can copyright a set of paint splashes on paper, as long as they're > *new* paint splashes. > > The real issue here, however, is "expression". What's important is > whether there are different ways to say it. So you can indeed > copyright the phone book or a dictionary, which *does* protect such > things as unusual use of typefaces or color to aid understanding. > What you can't do is prevent someone from publishing another phone > book or dictionary based on the same facts, and since "put it in > alphabetical order" hasn't been an original form of expression since > Aristotle or so, they can alphabetize their phone book or dictionary, > and it is going to look a lot like yours.
The above argument is what makes copyright so complicated. Computer software has been given the same status as a piece of literary work, so all conventions for such works apply. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that all computer software is copyrightable per-se. The key problem is defining the threshold of originality needed for a work to become copyrightable at all and that's where different jurisdictions use different definitions or guidelines based on case law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality E.g. in Germany it is common not to grant copyright on logos that are used as trademarks. OTOH, use of a logo in the trademark sense automatically makes it a trademark (even without registration). > On the other hand, ABCs are not a "mere collection of facts". They are > subject to various forms of organization (top down, bottom up, > alphabetical order, etc), and that organization will in general be > copyrightable. Also, unless your ABCs are all independent of each > other, you will be making choices about when to derive and when to > define from scratch. That aspect of organization is expressive, and > once written down ("fixed in a medium") it is copyrightable. > > > > I recommend his book by the way - I'm about half way through so far and > > > it is highly readable > > Larry Rosen's book is also good. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Jan 20 2009) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com