On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:43:32AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes: > > > It's my understanding that dictionaries, because they contain > > elements of originality in the selection and wording of definitions, > > constitute copyrightable works. At least in the US, to be > > copyrightable a work must be of a certain minimum length; I expect > > (though IANAL) that the examples listed above aren't enough to gain > > copyright protection, though a more extensive dictionary very well > > might be. > While I agree with you about the copyrightability of dictionaries, I > believe you're mistaken about the minimum-length requirement: several > artists have copyrighted silent pieces of music, for example. There > is also the emerging field of nanofiction, which is confined to 55 > words or less. Many of Emily Dickinson's poems are shorter than that, > and each would receive separate copyright protection. Well, I'm sure all we need to do to overturn this is get a federal judge to *read* some of Dickinson's poems: there's no way we'd get a ruling that such texts are original works meriting copyright protection... >:) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpa2g6sShVNg.pgp
Description: PGP signature