Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
jonathon <email@example.com> writes:
> On 03/20/2018 08:45 AM, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> The exception used here is that facts are not copyrightable.
> US copyright law has a creativity requirement. Just how much
> "creativity" is required is ambiguous.
> European copyright law typically has a "seat of the brow" component,
At least german copyright requires creativity.
> which means under European Copyright law, it would copyright. (That EU
> directive doesn't throw out copyright on "sweat of the brow" grounds.)
It does. It defines an exhaustive list of what is copyrightable (for
databases). Chapter II (Copyright), Article 3:
| 1. In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of
| the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the
| author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by
| copyright. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their
| eligibility for that protection.
So, no "sweat of the brow" or such (for copyright, suis generis is
>> Positions and movement parameters of celestial bodies, presented in
> their natural form (to keep the use of JPL-DE data as example) are bare
> The creativity here is:
> * Which bodies are included;
> * How frequently are the co-ordinates listed - hourly, daily, weekly,
> monthly, annually, etc.;
> * What unit of measurement is used for those co-ordinates;
> * What is the starting point of the listings;
> * What is the ending point of the listing;
This is all not artificially selected.
>> A (US) court decision that compilations of facts requires a minimum of
>> originality to be copyrighted (in that case it was a telephone book; a
>> time-sorted list of planet positions is the same).
> Astrolabe, Inc. v Arthur David Olson and Paul Eggert
> Massachusetts District Court 1:2011cv11725
> implies that a case to the contrary can be made.
Astrolabe dismissed the lawsuit, so no court decision was made. In wich
way does this imply that Astrolabe could claim copyright?
>> Is this enough material to claim an exception?
> Still doesn't cover those judicial domains in which "public domain" is
> not a legally recognised thing.
I don't say it is "public domain". I state that is is not copyrighted.
That is not the same.