FW: Re: Copyright of lists

Webb, Jere wrote ca. Monday, January 15, 2007 9:30 PM:

<< I have always thought the "selection" part of "selection and
arrangement" is a very interesting and troubling concept . . .. . . . publisher put into "selecting" only real living individuals for the book. Take this example: you decide to publish a list of everyone in a city that has green hair. Many hours are made implementing this selection. Copyright protection? I don't think so. >>

Nor do I for "green hair." But that's not a selection, that's a selection _criterion_. Selections don't always map predictably or objectively to their supposed criteria. Instead of "green hair" think "ambitious," "likely to succeed as X," "sexy," "liked me," etc. -- criteria which would result in different selections for different people.

<< So what would be a protectible "selection" that results in
an alphabetized list being protectible? I cant think of an example. Can anyone cite a relevant case? >>

Presumably, you mean the additional and unnecessary specification of "an alphabetized list" to eliminate the arrangement and coordination elements. The first case I think of is the selection of what words to regard as most important or significant for an early language learner. Merger and so forth don't help: different opinions can vary a lot. Are "se taire" and "con" and "foutre" high on the list or not on it at all? What about "meuf"? "Gotta know" or "important" are selection criteria without objective tests (unlike, say, frequency counts in a corpus of X type of text versus frequency counts in recordings of Y type of speech). There was such a case from the 2d Circuit, if I recall correctly, albeit from the 40s or so.

In fact, to some extent, "selection" is the only basis for copyright in translations ever: the issue is how much room is there to select one same-meaning, same-register expression over another same-meaning, same-register expression. But once past the Uncle Tom's Cabin case (which has its own explanation in very naïve ideas about translation and very practical ideas about whose publishing industry to protect), it's clear that the range of selection -- because that's what it is -- in translations is protectable.

Mike Trittipo
Minneapolis, MN Received on Wed Jan 17 2007 - 03:55:00 GMT