farmboy - 3:23 pm on Jun 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Well, the data is definitely based on facts (and you're right, how can you copyright facts?)

"Based on facts" can be very different from "facts." There is factual information that not only can be protected by copyright but also constitutes protected trade secret.

...and it would be easier for me to just use what they have published.

Not to be too dramatic, but instead of working, it would be easier for me to just steal money from those who do work. That doesn't make it ethical or legal.

Would they somehow be able to determine that I am not legally allowed to use the data that they have put some effort into collecting?

Which are you more concerned about, getting caught or doing the right thing?

I had a client who developed and sold lists of certain information based on "facts" obtained from required government filings. Although the basic facts couldn't be copyrighted, their presentation of the facts certainly could and was. They regularly "seeded" their presentation and it made it very easy to see who was copying their work.

Have no fears. There are no strings attached to the publishing of facts.

Yes there are strings attached.

The whole point of this type of data is not just that it is in the public domain, but that it's been released by the collators specifically for the public domain.

Again, I disagree.

On top of that, all compilers of surveys and facts love to see their work quoted - that's the whole point of it.

Once again, I disagree with this as a blanket statement.

This is one of the oldest rationalizations in the book and probably the one that gets people into trouble the most often.

It does not matter who develops the data, once it is released it is public information.

I disagree.

FarmBoy