Re: Databases, creativity, and copyright -- what's missing is wrong?

Terry has found the salient needles in my haystack post.

Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm suggesting that it's the missing data, and the lack of errors,
> > in a strict compilation, which both provide value,
>
> I'll buy that.
>
> > constitute the unique attribute,
>
> I'll buy that.
>
> > and are the originality of a database.
>
> Nope. Quite simply, the facts, including the correctness of the facts,
> are not original to the compiler of the database. The facts existed
> prior to the act of compilation.

I'll accept that the law and I will have differing opinions, and thanks to all who responded to the question.

My point, and this is more for consideration than response, is that it simply isn't sufficient to dump all data into a file and call it a database; that scrubbing, validating, linking, and cleaning are necessary to produce a valuable or useful product. The court's opinion seemed to focus on what was present rather than what was not, I still feel this is misplaced.

I agree with Joe Riolo's comment that the copyright granted would be thin, and that subsequent extracts from the database ought not be considered infringing use. A conservative impulse makes me prefer extending existing law to a domain rather than devising a new one which may not be necessary and could have harmful side effects.

Database compilation is much more like sculpting than writing. There's a saying that the sculptor merely frees the sculpture from the stone. Without arguing artistic merits (not required under 17 U.S.C.), in a similar sense the database compiler merely frees the facts from the cruft.

There is an arbitrary ideal called "the facts" which the compiler seeks. Once sources have been assembled, the process is *always* one of reducing the quantity of data by eliminating what doesn't fit. This is a highly idiosyncratic process, it requires manual intervention, and no two efforts will produce the same results. I quoted costs (and value) of the process less to quantify sweat than to make clear the value added of the process. I don't believe that every compilation would merit the distinction -- a pile of rocks is not necessarially a sculpture. Rural may not have met the mark. But a database in which the spark of originality could be shown to exist should.

<sigh> I'm just another misunderstood artist.

;-)

Thanks again.

-- 
Karsten M. Self (kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com)

    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    Welchen Teil von "Gestalt" verstehen Sie nicht?

web:       http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
SAS/Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html    

 10:51am  up 13 days, 10:40,  7 users,  load average: 1.39, 1.32, 1.17