So in your example, WA gets the copyright on the correlation even though I'm
the one who thought up the terms being correlated, on the grounds their
machine did the research at that point? Shouldn't we at a minimum share
credit for the work?
Take care,
Bill Ivey
Stoneleigh-Burnham School
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM, JPDS Tech <techpurchases@jpds.org> wrote:
> I read the W/A statement differently. I don't think they intend to enforce
> copyright on common knowledge questions. They appear to be making
> essentially an academic-type claim. They have taken existing facts and
> compiled them together in ways that may or may not have ever existed
> before.
> This is similar to a doctoral thesis which refers to data collected
> originally by other people/organizations (eg: Census Bureau) but analyzes
> it
> in new ways. That thesis IS copyrightable. The copyright isn't on the
> original data but on the product of analysis and synthesis of the data.
>
> Scenario: You ask W/A to compare two mildly obscure data points from two
> atypical groups (eg televisions per capita and infant mortality rates for
> Bosnia & Herzegovina and Brazil). W/A is stating that it is possible that
> nobody has ever put that particular combination of data together before.
> Thus, it is appropriate to cite W/A and not just the underlying sources of
> their chart. That parallels the way you would cite a thesis paper which
> synthesized these data points.
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
