Posting copyrighted data on the wiki

[Don_Burke]

He just did in his post... Title 17 of the United States Code.

Nonsense

That is only a step or two from saying it is somewhere in the library.

If he had a section to quote he would have done it.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Title 17 is The Copyright Act. The whole thing.

 

[Don_Burke]

Title 17 is The Copyright Act. The whole thing.

More nonsense.

Actually it is an entire title of US Code.

The overwhelming majority of it has nothing to do with posting information and it is my contention that none of it has anything to do with the case at hand.

If you want to claim something does apply, cite it.

 

[wa8pyr]

More nonsense.

Actually it is an entire title of US Code.

The overwhelming majority of it has nothing to do with posting information and it is my contention that none of it has anything to do with the case at hand.

If you want to claim something does apply, cite it.

Title 17 *is* the Copyright Act. All of it. The entire thing. It's ALL applicable in one way or another to the subject at hand.

But how about "CHAPTER 13—PROTECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGNS"

Satisfied????

 

[rdale]

You're saying that talkgroup information can be copyrighted? That goes against case law above - what's the catch?

 

[ecps92]

Give Credit where Credit is Due.
If you Snag it from XYZ mention it or Link to it.

Yes it is in the public domain, but provide a little credit.

Everything.

Please, people, read the law and get some expert advice (not RR.com hobbyists - consult competent attorneys) before debating. Better yet, find out what the law is, follow it, and quit beating this dead horse. Title 17 of the United States Code says what it says. No amount of disagreement will change that.

While I have argued strongly that certain info is copyrighted (because the law says that it is), I say those things in order to counteract some of the misinformation that has been spewed out on the Web. My policy is about the same as those stated by other publishers - if you use stuff from my website, then please mention that fact. As Chris said, we don't publish stuff in magazines or on websites to keep it secret!

 

[wa8pyr]

You're saying that talkgroup information can be copyrighted? That goes against case law above - what's the catch?

Read the entire thread and you'll get your answer...

 

[rdale]

Read the entire thread and you'll get your answer...

I did... Case law says it is not a copyright issue. Others are posting "look at this" and "look at that" and your reply implies that you think it's illegal to post talkgroups so I guess I'm asking for those who say it is - show us EXACTLY what you are using to make that claim.

 

[DonS]

Mere "information" cannot be protected by copyright. A particular presentation of that information can be. For example, the mere fact that the Santa Clara County Sheriff uses P25 CAI on 155.700000 MHz between 0700 and 2300 is not subject to copyright, but some person's original, unique representation of that data in a table, sentence, etc. is protected.

That's why (per case law referenced above) telephone numbers are not protected - only a particular format in a "phone book" can be protected.

Following that case law, if a system admin writes a text file that says something like "Talkgroup 1808 is Police Dispatch", then that exact phrase is protected by copyright. The mere fact that the Motorola control channel contains some binary version of "1808" (i.e. 0x71) when police dispatchers key their mics is not protected by copyright. If I write "Mot TGID 0x71 = PD Disp", that doesn't violate any copyright on "Talkgroup 1808 is Police Dispatch". Same information, but totally different forms. The initial information (or "design") might be patented, but that's an entirely different discussion.

 

[rdale]

Thanks for clarifying - your posts makes sense at least to a non-lawyer

Following that case law, if a system admin writes a text file that says something like "Talkgroup 1808 is Police Dispatch", then that exact phrase is protected by copyright.

But don't they have to do more than make a text file? Wouldn't it have to be submitted for copyright too?

 

[DonS]

But don't they have to do more than make a text file? Wouldn't it have to be submitted for copyright too?

No.

As soon as the "original work" is fixed (e.g. painting painted, music recorded, book written, computer program source code written), it's protected by copyright.

This "protection", though, is kind of weak without "registration". In order to sue someone for infringement of your copyright, you must have registered it with the Copyright Office (for the USA). The copyright exists without registration, but you don't have much in the way of legal remedies.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

EDIT: So, let's take the case of a talkgroup... Some system admin creates mappings of talkgroup IDs to "functions" (e.g. TGID 1808 = Police Dispatch). If he creates a document that describes these mappings, then that document is protected by copyright - but the mappings themselves are not. The admin (or his employer if his copyright is assigned to the employer) could sue you only if a) you directly copied his document and b) copyright for the document was registered. You certainly could not be sued for copyright infringement if you discovered that talkgroup ID 1808 was used for the police department's dispatch function, and published "PD Disp is 1808" on your web site.

 

[DonS]

Some snippets from the FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) decision (wherein the SCOTUS held that Feist's re-publication of names/numbers from Rural's telephone directory was not an infringment on any copyright held by Rural):

Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works.
...
The raw data are uncopyrightable facts
...
This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are. Each of these propositions possesses an impeccable pedigree. That there can be no valid copyright in facts is universally understood. The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that [499 U.S. 340, 345] "[n]o author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates." Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985). Rural wisely concedes this point, noting in its brief that "[f]acts and discoveries, of course, are not themselves subject to copyright protection."

A system admin's document that describes the TGID <-> Function mapping is like a complete telephone directory, and is protected by copyright. The fact that a certain TGID number is used by a certain group of users for a specific purpose is like an individual telephone number, and is "uncopyrightable".

EDIT: added another snippet from the majority decision in the SCOTUS case above

 

[DaveNF2G]

As soon as the "original work" is fixed (e.g. painting painted, music recorded, book written, computer program source code written), it's protected by copyright.

This "protection", though, is kind of weak without "registration". In order to sue someone for infringement of your copyright, you must have registered it with the Copyright Office (for the USA). The copyright exists without registration, but you don't have much in the way of legal remedies.

Not quite. The government will not prosecute without registration. Nor are they interested unless you can show an actual "loss" in the neighborhood of $10,000 or more. However, the private cause for action still sounds in copyright because of what you stated above - the work is still covered.

Also, taking work and presenting as your own is plagiarism. That might not be a crime in and of itself, but it carries hefty penalties in certain environments.

 

[DonS]

Not quite. The government will not prosecute without registration. Nor are they interested unless you can show an actual "loss" in the neighborhood of $10,000 or more. However, the private cause for action still sounds in copyright because of what you stated above - the work is still covered.

17 USC 411(a):

Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.
(Emphasis added)​

It doesn't make a distinction between "government" prosecution and "private cause for action". It says no action ... shall be instituted.

(106A(a) only refers to attribution and integrity - it has nothing to do with "copying" by itself)

 

[wa8pyr]

I did... Case law says it is not a copyright issue. Others are posting "look at this" and "look at that" and your reply implies that you think it's illegal to post talkgroups so I guess I'm asking for those who say it is - show us EXACTLY what you are using to make that claim.

It was stated earlier in the thread... factual data itself is not covered by copyright; the manner in which it's presented is. Thus, if the factual information is presented as shown in the work of another, that is a violation of the copyright.

Title 17, Chapter 13 § 1301 (Designs protected)

 

[rdale]

It was stated earlier in the thread... factual data itself is not covered by copyright; the manner in which it's presented is.

That's what we've agreed on - your post in response to the prior claim that talkgroups are proprietary information was what confused us.

 

[blantonl]

Ok, folks, I'm putting this one to rest (finally) - you know where *I* stand on the issue that hopefully the case law, the precedent, and my position are crystal clear.