Can lists be copyrighted?
July 30, 2006 11:49 PM Subscribe
Can lists be copyrighted?
Could I, for example, reproduce a list of Time's Top 100 movies on my website? I can't find any info online. Thanks.
Could I, for example, reproduce a list of Time's Top 100 movies on my website? I can't find any info online. Thanks.
This will depend on the country. However in the US, this case might be relevant to your question.
posted by vizsla at 12:08 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by vizsla at 12:08 AM on July 31, 2006
Response by poster: orthogonality: Exactly. I don't know if this means it crosses the line and can't be reproduced.
vizsla: I'm in the US. Thanks for the link. It looks like I'll need to find out if these lists meet the court's "Threshold of originality".
posted by null terminated at 12:30 AM on July 31, 2006
vizsla: I'm in the US. Thanks for the link. It looks like I'll need to find out if these lists meet the court's "Threshold of originality".
posted by null terminated at 12:30 AM on July 31, 2006
If it was me, I would include just the top 50 and link to Time's site for people to find the rest. This is a win-win and strongly doubt Time would object.
posted by vizsla at 12:40 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by vizsla at 12:40 AM on July 31, 2006
Best answer: I was actually involved in a suit which hinged partially on this. Apparently it used to be generally the case that a list that took a lot of work to compile could be copyrightable, even if they were "mere facts." This was called the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, and it still holds in many countries outside the US. In the US, though, the advent of computers and their talent for arranging mere facts in any desired order was held by courts to have made the brow much less sweaty, and among other things it made the simplest type of "white pages" phone book basically uncopyrightable. Hence all the third-party phone books now; I think I get three separate ones, and I don't even have a phone line at the house.
So, back to the matter at hand, a list of all movies would not be copyrightable, and a list of top 100 biggest-grossing movies would not be copyrightable, but one that involves creative selection criteria (e.g. the 100 "best" movies) would be. You could claim "fair use" for Time's list, but be aware that "fair use" is a DEFENSE -- in other words, it doesn't protect you from being sued, it just protects you from LOSING a suit, IF the court agrees with you that your use of the list was in fact fair use. The court will take into account things like the amount of the material copied (25% is way better than 100%), the purpose of the copying (parody, comment, or criticism [e.g. "10 movies that shouldn't be on Time's Top 100 list, what were they smoking?"] is way better than "I'm gonna slap some Google Ads on this and make some money"), and the impact of the copy on the market for the original work (attribution helps here). Also, if you can show you were aware of these considerations and that you did your best to address them, rather than ignoring copyright entirely, that'll probably help too.
That said, in practical terms they'll give your ISP a DMCA takedown notice and probably won't sue you even if you infringe egregiously.
posted by kindall at 1:33 AM on July 31, 2006
So, back to the matter at hand, a list of all movies would not be copyrightable, and a list of top 100 biggest-grossing movies would not be copyrightable, but one that involves creative selection criteria (e.g. the 100 "best" movies) would be. You could claim "fair use" for Time's list, but be aware that "fair use" is a DEFENSE -- in other words, it doesn't protect you from being sued, it just protects you from LOSING a suit, IF the court agrees with you that your use of the list was in fact fair use. The court will take into account things like the amount of the material copied (25% is way better than 100%), the purpose of the copying (parody, comment, or criticism [e.g. "10 movies that shouldn't be on Time's Top 100 list, what were they smoking?"] is way better than "I'm gonna slap some Google Ads on this and make some money"), and the impact of the copy on the market for the original work (attribution helps here). Also, if you can show you were aware of these considerations and that you did your best to address them, rather than ignoring copyright entirely, that'll probably help too.
That said, in practical terms they'll give your ISP a DMCA takedown notice and probably won't sue you even if you infringe egregiously.
posted by kindall at 1:33 AM on July 31, 2006
Response by poster: It looks like Wikipedia is reproducing certain lists, I'll just quote Wikipedia.
posted by null terminated at 2:07 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by null terminated at 2:07 AM on July 31, 2006
What happens if null copies the list but 'adds value' by including his own commentary? Does that put it squarely back in the realm of fair use?
posted by kimota at 6:08 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by kimota at 6:08 AM on July 31, 2006
Again, commentary is one of the factors that a court will use in determining whether a given use is "fair use," but it's not the only one. The amount of copying is fairly important.
posted by kindall at 8:27 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by kindall at 8:27 AM on July 31, 2006
I know the New York Times, for instance, guards its bestseller list jealously. A couple of links from 1999.
posted by owen at 8:42 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by owen at 8:42 AM on July 31, 2006
What happens if null copies the list but 'adds value' by including his own commentary? Does that put it squarely back in the realm of fair use?
Virtually nothing is "squarely in the realm of fair use." It's a very gray area, and the only absolute determination of whether a certain use is fair or not is whether a judge says it's fair or not, and of course that can't be determined until the case actually comes to court.
That said, the judges don't just flip coins or be completely subjective in determining whether a use is fair or not. Section 107 of the Copyright Act specifies four factors to take into account when determining whether a use is fair use or not.
Adding criticism to the list would improve your standing with regard to one of those four factors, so you'd have a better chance of the list+commentary being allowed as a fair use than the list alone. But that's not saying the list+commentary would actually be permitted as a fair use.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:57 AM on July 31, 2006
Virtually nothing is "squarely in the realm of fair use." It's a very gray area, and the only absolute determination of whether a certain use is fair or not is whether a judge says it's fair or not, and of course that can't be determined until the case actually comes to court.
That said, the judges don't just flip coins or be completely subjective in determining whether a use is fair or not. Section 107 of the Copyright Act specifies four factors to take into account when determining whether a use is fair use or not.
Adding criticism to the list would improve your standing with regard to one of those four factors, so you'd have a better chance of the list+commentary being allowed as a fair use than the list alone. But that's not saying the list+commentary would actually be permitted as a fair use.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:57 AM on July 31, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by orthogonality at 12:01 AM on July 31, 2006