On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:56:24 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

The tap-drill table in MH is the same as any other I've seen. Are you
claiming *that* is IP's property? Which mathematical formulas belong to
them?

I said representations. You can't copy their pages, whether they were
electronic or printed. I have the CD of the 26th Edition. The copyright
declarations are all over it, and the trademarks are registered.

Representations of public domain facts may or may not be protected,
depending on whether there is any original authorship in the presentation
per se.

This is true as far as it goes, but the Supreme Court's test for
'original authorship' in compilation copyrights sets the bar pretty
low.

From the court decision in Feist:
Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite
originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to
include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected
data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as
to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently
by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are
sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations
through the copyright laws. Nimmer ss 2.11[D], 3.03; Denicola 523, n.
38. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible
written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for
copyright protection if it features an original selection or
arrangement. See: Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 547, 105 S.Ct., at 2223.
Accord, Nimmer s 3.03.

(See http://stellar-one.com/copyright_and...logy/feist.htm
for an analysis and the decision)

I think you're being misled by the rather peculiar nature of the
situation in Feist. The data involved in Feist, a list of names and
associated phone numbers, is very reductionist example. Most
compilations of facts aren't nearly that bare and there is almost
always some selection involved.

For much of the information in MH, there just isn't any genuine
originality possible for the presentation. There are not that many ways
to present a mapping of one set (standard tap sizes) to another set (118
standard drill sizes).

No, but if you've got a number of such tables, the elements of
'selection and originality' can well begin to come into play in
choosing which tables to present.

So one could theoretically (and I am certainly not the one to be attempting
this as the guinea pig) copy all the "facts" out of MH and present it as
the most plain of HTML tables on Web pages.

I wouldn't bet on it. Consider this example from the legal analysis
presented on Bitlaw:

A database of facts is also protected as a compilation, assuming the
grouping contains enough original expression to merit protection (see
the discussion of Feist below). An example of a protectable grouping
of facts would be a database of Internet locations for selected legal
articles. Each location consists merely of factual information, namely
that a particular article can be found at a particular URL location on
the Internet. There is no copyright protection for each location.
Therefore, while the individual locations can be copied by others, if
an entire database of locations (or a substantial portion of the
database) were copied, the copyright in the compilation would be
infringed. The creative, original expression that is being protected
is the selection of locations for the database. If the locations were
divided by topic in the database, the organization of the database
would also be protected.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#Feist

The argument reduces to which elements of the book are facts vs which are
original authorship.

Well, yes, but the court has held that selection and arrangmenet of
the facts can constitute an act of original authorship.

In _Feist_, it was a table of names vs phone numbers.
In MH, it is taps vs drills. I would expect you could publish, say, an
HTML version of that table on the Web all you like. Indeed, Google will
find many instances of identical tabulated facts on the Web.

Yep. However the situation becomes more complex when you consider a
whole set of such tables.

One of the confusing things in all this is that while a compilation
copyright protects the compilation it does not protect the underlying
facts if they are not otherwise protected.

From the Bitlaw article:

Thus, a database of unprotectable works (such as basic facts) is
protected only as a compilation. Since the underlying data is not
protected, U.S. copyright law does not prevent the extraction of
unprotected data from an otherwise protectable database. In the
example of a database of presidential quotations, it would therefore
not be a violation of copyright law to extract (copy) a quotation from
George Washington from the database. On the other hand, it would be
violation to copy the entire database, as long as the database met the
Feist originality and creativity requirements.

Yet preceding that table are a few paragraphs of prose, discussing how
drilling and tapping is performed, how twist drills typically oversize the
hole, how reaming is better for larger diameters and finer threads, etc.
This sort of prose has some originality of authorship and might be
protected.

There's no 'might be' in that case. That explanatory material _is_
protected. That's a well established principle.

Even then, the ideas therein are not protected and must be
freely publishible. The latitude of original expression in technical
information is highly restricted compared to ordinary literary works.

Agreed, one cannot now scan the paper MH and publish images of it,
verbatim, legally. Likewise the CD. But much of the content is just
facts, not original expression. One could publish a somewhat thinner book,
entitled, "Every Dry Fact in MH". The argument would be simply details
about which items were facts versus which were original, and that is an
impossibly complex judgment.

This is a key misunderstanding. The creativity and originality can lie
in the selection and arrangment of the material as well as in the
material itself.

Some publishers (not IP, of course) use
exactly that complexity to their advantage to bully the world into
accepting their text as the proprietary version.

If they can show sufficent originality and creativity in the
selection, then they're entitled to a compilation copyright -- see the
Supreme Court decision above. (But also consider the limits imposed by
the _Warren_ case cited below.)

That is exactly what _Feist_ was supposed to clear up, but apparently some haven't heard.
The problem is that you're reading something into _Feist_ that just
isn't there.

How far do you want to try pushing it?

Not very far at all.

I am perplexed by how a book that is 4/5 public domain facts and 1/5
original prose can leverage that 1/5 to make itself the sole publication of
its type. You would think that the 4/5 would be freely available.

The underlying facts, if they are public domain, aren't copyrighted
and may be freely used. But originality and creativity, as the court
defined them, aren't limited to the facts. They also apply to the
arrangement and selection of the facts. If you copy the arrangement
and selection you may well infringe the compilation copyright.

For another look at the whole situation see _Warren Publishing vs
Microdos Data", a report of which can be found he
http://www.alschuler.com/print/artrje2.html

In this case, the court set out three principles for compilation
copyrights: (quoted with snippage)

Principle (1): A selection of data is not copyrightable where the
entire universe is "selected," even if the compiler is the first to
think of compiling the information and even if the compilation is
commercially useful. . . .

Principle (2): A selection is not copyrightable where it is not the
result of the compiler's own judgment, even if the compiler is the
first to think of making the selection in the particular manner. The
selection is not a true selection if there is no room for creativity;
a copyrighted "selection" must be the result of the compiler's opinion
about something subjective (e.g., the compiler includes in a trivia
book certain facts from the universe of facts because of a belief that
they are the most interesting facts; the compiler includes facts about
15 restaurants in New York City from the universe of restaurants in
New York City based on a belief that they are the 15 best restaurants
in New York City; or the compiler includes facts about ten cable
systems based on a belief that they will still be in business in the
year 2000).

Principle (3): A "system" of selecting is not subject to copyright
protection even if it is creative and original.

I'm also perplexed as to how the old theories of copyright can survive,
because they are based entirely on copies costing something to make, and
money changing hands for copies being made, neither of which is the case on
a.b.e.

How are copyright theories based on copies costing something to make?

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.