Forum Moderators: not2easy
The copyright law basically protects the exact expression of a thought, not its interpretation. For example, when I am writing a screenplay that puts Harry and Sally in a car driving from L.A. to New York, discussing their understanding of partnership in concrete dialogue, then only the factual expression can be protected (e.g. HARRY and SALLY, FROM L.A. TO NEW YORK, CONCRETE DIALOGUE).
A sleazy scribe may put Woody and Linda in a car driving from San Francisco to Seattle (no prob, the idea of putting people in a car is not protectable), discussing their understanding of partnership (not protectable) in concrete dialogue (whoa! Here it's getting dangerous!).
If you read a news story on a topic mentioned by a.com and rewrite the same story without using much of the original story (i.e. no quotes from people, no quotes of the concrete sentences) plus you do some research with b.com and c.com, you should be fine. If you are nice, you provide the sources, but this is not a necessity AFAIK.
Rewriting happens all the time, and unless you quote from an exclusive story massively (i.e. copy large chunks of text), there is no problem. In fact, you even own the copyright to your re-writing.
But if you want to get a serious reply, we have to wait for the lawyers jumping on this thread. :-)
If you use your own words reporting factual news you heard or read somewhere else, then you'll be fine.
If you do anyting else, ask a lawyer... ;)
Facts can't be copyrighted
How would this apply to telephone directory listings - they are facts, but not easily rewritable?
I don't have the case citations on phone directories, but that is one area where some courts have judged that the raw listing information isn't copyrightable. Naturally, this may vary by country, so consult an attorney in your jurisdiction before you publish your own phone listings.
But let me know make it a little more complex.
What about one reporter, just one, really one reported was allowed to go inside Brad&Jeniffer super-confidencial wedding and was allowed to do a reporting on it, s/he had the exclusive.
Still everything applies? If so, then what would be the deal with having "an exclusive" (anybody would reword it later, and/or do reporting on the reporting)? just be the first one?
However, to the extent this data is organized into a specific pattern (e.g. the yellow page categories) at least portions of that pattern are likely to be a unique creative expression, which would be protected under US copyright laws.
The same principle applies to most numbers and data in general. You need to be very careful if you take someone's data, because you likely found that data within an copywritten article, and the creative aspects of that article are protected.
But let me know make it a little more complex.
No, fischermix, don't make it any more complex - see a lawyer.
All you're inviting here is pure speculation at its wildest - and at it's most uninformed (sorry all here - & I do include myself as being among the uninformed).
Seek professional advice.
Syzygy
But let me know make it a little more complex.
What about one reporter, just one, really one reported was allowed to go inside Brad&Jeniffer super-confidencial wedding and was allowed to do a reporting on it, s/he had the exclusive.
Still everything applies? If so, then what would be the deal with having "an exclusive" (anybody would reword it later, and/or do reporting on the reporting)? just be the first one?
In this case, you could paraphrase the main fact, along mentioning the source, e.g. "According to a c.com news story, Brad and Jennifer got married today". Forget photos - protected. Forget any substantial quotes from the party guests - protected. So, in my feeling, there is not much beef left (besides the fact itself that there was a top secret marriage) that would support your "news story".
