Copyright in the networked world: using facts
| Published date | 01 July 2006 |
| Pages | 463-468 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692217 |
| Date | 01 July 2006 |
| Author | Michael Seadle |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
COLUMN
Copyright in the networked
world: using facts
Michael Seadle
MSU Libraries, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this column is to look at how US copyright law deals with facts and what
can reasonably be considered as a fact.
Design/methodology/approach – The US statutes and case law are examined, as well as standard
practices within academic settings for the use and analysis of facts.
Findings – Using facts may require a risk assessment under certain circumstances. Although facts
cannot be protected under US law, compilations of facts can have protection under the European
Database Directive, and certain apparent facts, such as normal human body temperature, represent
judgments based on extensive research and analysis. It is not always clear when a research result
achieves the status of a fact and is therefore exempt from copyright protection.
Originality/value – The use of facts is an essential part of scholarly work and factual compilations
are important tools for many scholarly communities. Understanding how far facts may be used and
manipulated helps researchers and teachers who have grown anxious about copyright infringement.
Keywords Copyright law, UnitedStates of America
Paper type Case study
Introduction
[My mother] always says, my Lord, that facts are like cows. If you look them in the face hard
enough they generally run away – Bunter to Lord Peter (Sayers, 1927).
One of the most common copyright questions I get in my role as copyright advisor is
whether a graphical representation of a statistical analysis of data may be copied and
used online. In other words, can the data and the resultinggraph be considered facts? Or
do the data pointson the graph represent an analysis withenough originality to meet the
requirementof the copyright law? And do the dataunderlying the analysis have thelegal
status of “facts” or did the work that went into creating or assembling them suffice for
copyright protection? Facts are rarely simple when looked at carefully enough.
The goal of this column is to help answer these questions. Only a court can give a
definitive answer. I will present some of the factors that a US court might consider,
including:
.the US copyright statutes;
.the 1991 Feist decision that discussed both facts and compilations of facts; and
.the 1999 Bridgeman Art Library decision, where the court considered the effect
of a mechanical process on public domain materials.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
Copyright in the
networked world
463
Received 14 June 2006
Revised 16 June 2006
Accepted 18 June 2006
Library Hi Tech
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2006
pp. 463-468
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/07378830610692217
To continue reading
Request your trial