Is this a copyright violation?

[schmidte]

I'm putting together a searchable database of fishing information. In order to get data for my site can I go to other fishing sites, find the data I need and "manually" put it in my database. It's like I'm "manually spidering" other fishing sites. Or is this a copyright violation for stealing their copyrighted content?
I wouldn't think it would be any different than some other search engine spidering their site and gathering the same information, except I'm doing it manually.
ED

[jberryhill]

"the data I need"

What sort of data are we talking about here? The reason I ask is because copyright does not cover information per se, but the manner in which that information is expressed.

For example, five reporters might watch a football game, and all write their own article describing the game. The fact that the game had a score of X to Y, and the sequence of events that constituted the game, are not copyrightable. However, the sequences of words that these reporters use to describe the game *are* copyrightable.

So, if you are talking about a table which, for example, lists the lakes of Louisiana in alphabetical order, states whether a boat ramp is available, and lists the species of fish found in each lake, then there is precious little copyright except maybe in the arrangement and presentation of the data.

But if you are talking about a collection of various fishing tips and tricks, which includes commentary on lures, locations, fish behavior, etc., then much of the content is more likely to be considered "expressive" in nature, rather than purely factual.

[schmidte]

Thanks John....

The data I'm looking for are "fishing reports", most of which are posted in forums and some in the sporting sections of newspaper sites.

Fishing reports are exactly what you mentioned above "fishing tips and tricks, which includes commentary on lures, locations, fish behavior, etc."

And your other comment...""expressive" in nature, rather than purely factual.",..... have you ever heard a fisherman give out FACTUAL information....lol.
ED

[Anthony Ng]

I guess you already have your answer. But to add a bit, you might want to think if that piece of information is "exclusive" or not. For instance, it's very different when you "report" on say a traffic accident happened on a busy highway vs. one that you read from a newspaper which quoted an eyewitness who told of what he saw in the middle of the night on a quiet rural side road. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

[jberryhill]

In collecting and compiling this information, you should be careful to separate "informational" content from "expressive" content.

For example (I know jack about fish)

Indian River Inlet, Delaware - Blue Marlin are schooling at high tide south of the rocks and are going after squid

Seven Mile Beach, Cayman Islands - Sargeant Majors are chasing after Slippery Barracudas

You might want to re-word those in order to convey the same factual information - which, if you can, is one test for whether the content is expressive or informational.

[jberryhill]

"if that piece of information is 'exclusive' or not"

"Information", apart from things like trade secrets, is not protected. Cases dealing with this have included things like sports scores. With the advent of pager-based information services, people found they could make money by sending out live sports scores. Predictably, some of the leagues felt there was another cash cow in the barn, and claimed to "own" the scores as they happened. Didn't work.

A similar failed doctrine is the "hot news" doctrine - where a news service might have a limited-time protectible interest in a "scoop" that no one else has. Nope. If you can read that wire service legally, then you can extract the facts, re-write them your own way, and send them out.

Yet another failed doctrine is the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, where a compilation of mundane facts requires such work that the compiler should be rewarded with an exclusive right in it.

If a fact is published, it is a fact that can be used freely. As a point of reference, the classic example of something that is not normally considered copyrightable is an ordinary food preparation recipe - a list of ingredients and sequential instructions for using them.

[schmidte]

What I've been doing is taking 12 pieces of data from a report (the original report is usually written in paragraph form) putting the data in my database thru forms and then it is made available to visitors in table form. See www.BassFishingLog.com

Visitors will see the 12 individual pieces of data as apposed to a written out report as you would see in a newspaper.

[Anthony Ng]

"Information", apart from things like trade secrets, is not protected ...

A similar failed doctrine is the "hot news" doctrine - where a news service might have a limited-time protectible interest in a "scoop" that no one else has. Nope. If you can read that wire service legally, then you can extract the facts, re-write them your own way, and send them out.

If a fact is published, it is a fact that can be used freely ...

Thanks, John. This is EXACTLY what I need.

[RMF]

The way I see it, you can't do that without the authors (copyright owner) permission. I guess it also depends on what is said in the terms/conditions on the website you intend to "steal content" from.

RMF

[schmidte]

Here is what one of the disclaimers on a fishing site that has some data I'd like to put in my database:
"Our lawyer tells us that, by reading any of the articles, reports, or messages at this site, you acknowledge that the opinions and information expressed in this article are those of the poster/submitter and not those of WebMasters XXXXXXXXXXXXX."

Would this make their content "expressive" and allright for me to use?

ED

[jberryhill]

That disclaimer is irrelevant to your question.

But maybe I'm not being clear. Facts are facts, and they are not protectible by copyright. What is protected by a copyright is the way you express the facts.

"The way I see it, you can't do that without the authors (copyright owner) permission."

You can copy any uncopyrightable information you would like to copy without anyone's permission.

The classic cases involve telephone books. It turns out that an alphabetical list of names and telephone numbers is NOT copyrightable.

If you read the Feist case, you should get a pretty good grip on what I'm driving at here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright...499_US_340.htm

FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO.

It is this bedrock principle of copyright that mandates the law's seemingly disparate treatment of facts and factual compilations. "No one may claim originality as to facts." Id., § 2.11[A], p. 2-157. This is because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation and discovery: the first person to find and report a particular fact has not created the fact; he or she has merely discovered its existence. To borrow from Burrow-Giles, one who discovers a fact is not its "maker" or "originator." 111 U.S., at 58. "The discoverer merely finds and records." Nimmer § 2.03[E]. Census-takers, for example, do not "create" the population figures that emerge from their efforts; in a sense, they copy these figures from the world around them. Denicola, Copyright in Collections of Facts: A Theory for the Protection of Nonfiction Literary Works, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 516, 525 (1981) (hereinafter Denicola). Census data therefore do not trigger copyright because these data are not "original" in the constitutional sense. Nimmer [p*348] § 2.03[E]. The same is true of all facts -- scientific, historical, biographical, and news of the day. "They may not be copyrighted and are part of the public domain available to every person." Miller, supra, at 1369.

[16] Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws. Nimmer §§ 2.11[D], 3.03; Denicola 523, n. 38.

[schmidte]

Thanks John, I suggest everyone should read your link above to get an insight into copyrights, I found it most helpful.
I do have one final comment and then I'll give it a rest.
In reference to this statement in section 13:

In Burrow-Giles, the Court distilled the same requirement from the Constitution's use of the word "authors." The Court defined "author," in a constitutional sense, to mean "he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker."

With that being said: If I write something in a forum (fishing report), Does the author of the report have the copyrights or the forum inwhich it was posted. My guess is that since the forum was the "compilier" of the facts that they have the rights.
Thanks again,
ED

[jberryhill]

"Does the author of the report have the copyrights or the forum inwhich it was posted."

First, nobody has a copyright in facts.

Let's take DNForum as an example. Is DNForum the "author" of the stuff that I write here? No. Did I assign my rights to DNForum? No. The Constitution specifically refers to "authors".

Obviously, by posting, I am permitting my copyrighted material to be shown at DNForum, but I certainly retain my copyright in the material. DNForum could not publish my articles in, say, a book. Also, I can prevent other people from publishing the material elsewhere.

Now, look at this webpage - the way it is arranged and laid out... the various graphics, etc. - DNForum owns the copyright in that.

When you are talking about a copyright in a compilation, my favorite example (as some know here) is something like the Daily Racing Form. Even though it is mostly a bunch of tables which present the horses entered in various races, and their past performances, you can't just run off copies of the DRF and sell it to other people. If you want to make your own arrangement of the same data, feel free.

One trap is to think of "the copyright" in a work. For example, you buy a CD, who owns "the copyright" in that CD. Well, for one recorded song, you have:

1. The person who wrote the song has a copyright in the composition.
2. The performer has a copyright in the performance.
3. The recording engineers, mixers, etc. have a copyright in the recording.
4. The person who made the cover art has a copyright in the cover art.

There's a whole raft of copyright tied up in something as simple as a CD, before we even get to the trademark issues.

The same is true of many websites, which is something one should consider before "buying a website" - i.e. is whatever I am "buying" sufficient to convey to me all of the various rights that might be tied up in that website.