[open-bibliography] comprehensive bibliographic database of "open" resources?

[Adrian Pohl]

Of course you are right, Karen. Thanks for making this clear. I quoted
this part of the policy to underline the fact that there is no
copyright on individual records and I didn't want to state that OCLC
actually has a copyright on the database. I too think that it is quite
possible OCLC's claims wouldn't withstand in a trial.

> WorldCat as
> a whole (database, UI, services) should be copyrightable, but the data
> itself, even the entire set of data, probably is not.

The phrase "WorldCat as a whole" confuses me. I wouldn't say the whole
is copyrighted but certain components or aspects of it. E.g., there
most probably are property and related rights associated with the
technology behind WorldCat (which probably aren't owned by OCLC), the
logos and design and other things. But that doesn't sum up to WorldCat
as a whole being protected.

Adrian

2010/8/18 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
> Quoting Adrian Pohl <pohl at hbz-nrw.de>:
>
>
>> "OCLC claims copyright rights in WorldCat as a compilation, it does  not
>> claim copyright ownership of individual records".
>
> Adrian, OCLC claims the rights, but that does not mean that OCLC *has* the
> rights. Anyone can claim rights in anything, but until it is settled via a
> legal procedure it is just a claim. So do not assume that this claim = legal
> rights. That is why the lawsuit between SkyRiver and OCLC is so interesting
> to some of us: it may be the first time that some of our assumptions are
> actually scrutinized in a court of law. I don't know if this particular
> issue will be part of that discussion, but many of us think that WorldCat's
> bibliographic data does not meet the minimum US legal requirements for
> copyright protection. (The key point of which is "creativity." A mere
> compilation of facts does not meet the creativity requirement.) WorldCat as
> a whole (database, UI, services) should be copyrightable, but the data
> itself, even the entire set of data, probably is not.
>
> kc
>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>