npub17usu76xp6t8rlkgeppuks957y9qjmc2rpn499m68sv4ce6vu0qhsrr4u5x (npub17us…4u5x) npub18yve5f33hyqq35t3y3xu72t9x33pfdznd0kq78lf73wkxchzr5hsmjxxyn (npub18yv…xxyn) In general list, databases, directories are difficult to copyright unless there is a degree of creativity involved in the compilation. Note “work” or “effort” is not relevant, creativity is.
Thats not true, the copyright is automatic and garunteed.. what is hard to do is enforce it. I would need to prove you actually copied from my list, and if you modify your list or the list is short, that can be very hard to do. But if it is clear you literally just copied some list someone compiled.. then yea if that can be proven it would certainly be illegal. The usual example is recipes. A recipe cannot be copyrighted as it is a set of ingredients and instructions.
No this isnt true its more complicated than that. A list of food items in and of itself cant be copyrighted. However a recipe can, since a recipe is more than a list of food items but includes how you prepare those food items, and other aspects that make it copyrightable. Therefore will need to have a written description on how to prepare it as well as other information. These written texts ultimately make them copyrightable but it isnt the only aspect that makes it copyrigtable. A book containing a set of recipes can be, primarily because to the text and photos describing the recipes.
No that is not why, though it is part of it… The descriptions and other aspects are copyrightable and is one among many reasons a recipe book is.. but here is the rub…. even a recipe book that is itself modern, but every single recipe in it is in the public domain (because they are old enough)… you still cant republish the recipie book and the book itself is copyrighted. Thats because it isnt the descriptions at all that protect it, it is because collections are protected.
Now you may wonder, if collections are protected why arent lists of ingredients… Largely because they dont rise to the level of a collection under copyright law. A collection needs to be more substantial than a short list of food items.
A dictionary, even if you reduce it to a list of words without definitions, would be substantial enough to fall under the definition of a collection. Much like a book of public domain recipies is, as a collection, copyrighted, so too would a list of curated words that are expansive enough to be an attempt at describing the whole of the english language.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 /
npub1zt…enwdy
2023-09-27 19:29:09
in reply to nevent1q…gtqg
Author Public Key
npub1ztdf3gaxd768ks6jdvdjg853ma3jhl2qtrw9xeyn3hyn9l5nzyvq5enwdyPublished at
2023-09-27 19:29:09Event JSON
{
"id": "94c9da591d1f8259209fc133b0a5884ba0ff9714809e4afd3ce3163d09e5af4f",
"pubkey": "12da98a3a66fb47b43526b1b241e91df632bfd4058dc5364938dc932fe931118",
"created_at": 1695842949,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"f721cf68c1d2ce3fd919087968169e21412de1430cea52ef47832b8ce99c782f",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"39199a2631b90008d171244dcf2965346214b4536bec0f1fe9f45d6362e21d2f",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"beee28c6450eb5d21bf94279d1f3f41e524c87abf86393835b45e6a1e98390e7",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"07a61cf084eeb4b41ff3e050717aa6d74342cec10f0e7f0a822e20a570f38746",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"641ed5b555bdfc2c39a2d36d469f51f1b614d3cbf318305f5577ab739ae03691",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://qoto.org/users/freemo/statuses/111138763496357500",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub17usu76xp6t8rlkgeppuks957y9qjmc2rpn499m68sv4ce6vu0qhsrr4u5x nostr:npub18yve5f33hyqq35t3y3xu72t9x33pfdznd0kq78lf73wkxchzr5hsmjxxyn In general list, databases, directories are difficult to copyright unless there is a degree of creativity involved in the compilation. Note “work” or “effort” is not relevant, creativity is.\n\nThats not true, the copyright is automatic and garunteed.. what is hard to do is enforce it. I would need to prove you actually copied from my list, and if you modify your list or the list is short, that can be very hard to do. But if it is clear you literally just copied some list someone compiled.. then yea if that can be proven it would certainly be illegal. The usual example is recipes. A recipe cannot be copyrighted as it is a set of ingredients and instructions.\n\nNo this isnt true its more complicated than that. A list of food items in and of itself cant be copyrighted. However a recipe can, since a recipe is more than a list of food items but includes how you prepare those food items, and other aspects that make it copyrightable. Therefore will need to have a written description on how to prepare it as well as other information. These written texts ultimately make them copyrightable but it isnt the only aspect that makes it copyrigtable. A book containing a set of recipes can be, primarily because to the text and photos describing the recipes.\n\nNo that is not why, though it is part of it… The descriptions and other aspects are copyrightable and is one among many reasons a recipe book is.. but here is the rub…. even a recipe book that is itself modern, but every single recipe in it is in the public domain (because they are old enough)… you still cant republish the recipie book and the book itself is copyrighted. Thats because it isnt the descriptions at all that protect it, it is because collections are protected.\n\nNow you may wonder, if collections are protected why arent lists of ingredients… Largely because they dont rise to the level of a collection under copyright law. A collection needs to be more substantial than a short list of food items.\n\nA dictionary, even if you reduce it to a list of words without definitions, would be substantial enough to fall under the definition of a collection. Much like a book of public domain recipies is, as a collection, copyrighted, so too would a list of curated words that are expansive enough to be an attempt at describing the whole of the english language.",
"sig": "d8415e44fe0d2dfcbd7a633c476c5ec8a1fab46b0dc6e6aa41a2861af390f4f654445e38bb607274ead107c47ffa4de05d2a047bd0c7efed497462d714298e03"
}