Copyright on Facts not Copy

Questions about the AP statement

[vincevincevince]

The Associated Press is tagging articles with:

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(my bold)

Assuming rewriting something means identifying the facts presented and relating them in another form, can such an action really be prevented by copyright law?

So far as I am aware, copyright does not cover facts.

[iamlost]

TThe following is from CNN but similar notes are on many AP client sites:

Associated Press Notice

Associated Press text, photos, graphics, audio and/or video materials shall not directly or indirectly be published, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Subscriber does not hold the AP liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damage arising from any of the foregoing.

Note the bold (my emphasis) section expands on the brief copyright notice you noted. The rewriting references differing media delivery of the work, i.e. text to audio, audio to text, etc. not the reuse the facts within the work.

From the Canadian Intellectual Property Office website (their bold emphasis):

In the case of a magazine article including factual information, it is the expression of the information that is protected, and not the facts.

Facts, ideas and news are all considered part of the public domain, that is, they are everyone's property.

[vincevincevince]

iamlost - helpful posting of a more detailed statement. The shorter one does seem misleading if its meaning is the same as the longer one... but then it wouldn't be the first time big companies have tried to mislead people about the nature of copyright through their terminology.

[nonni]

Yes, that can be prohibited.

The term "rewritten" in that context refers to an adaptation of the copyright work - although changes are made when 'rewriting', the identity of the original work can still be discerned. Rewriting might mean changing words to make it appear different, or editing to make it shorter and then rephrasing. That is plagiarism/copyright infringement.

They cannot prohibit their work from being quoted, cited, or referred to, although there are legal limits on quoting/citing.

Think about Harry Potter. Can you 'rewrite' that book and expect a publisher to not laugh you out of their offices? No.

Sure, lots of kids' books use the same archetypes, and there are often similarities in the plot. But you cannot take a copy of Harry Potter and sit down and rewrite it and expect to publish 'your' book without legal consequences. Is there a gray line between being inspired and copying? Sure. But if you want to make money without being hassled by other copyright holders, just be original.

[edited by: nonni at 1:02 am (utc) on Mar. 8, 2007]

[vincevincevince]

nonni - you say that the identity of the original work cannot be discernible. I feel that is a poor test because if the facts presented in that article are only available in that article then anyone reporting those facts in any way will fail that test. Do you have any reference for that test?

[nonni]

You're partially right - and journalists have their own set of rules for dealing with 'an exclusive.' Often, they will say something like "XYZ TV is reporting such and such" and then they move to things that are not exclusive, like how the public is reacting to the news, what well known events have led up to the development, speculation about what may happen next, etc.

The fact that XYZ is reporting that Elvis turned up alive and he is fly-fishing in Iceland is itself news and newsworthy (assuming XYZ is credible, otherwise, ignore em). But other ethical journalists will only use that claim as a starting point - they can quote the claim, explain where it came from, and use it as the starting point for their own story, but not take the original story and rewrite it. Besides, if someone doesn't have the exclusive, they don't really know what is going on - better to be sceptical, analytical, and up front with the audience ... maybe its just some guy that looked like Elvis. Then you don't share the shame with XYZ.

Scientists also have their own well defined system for citing the findings of others without claiming those facts as their own, or rewriting previously published papers. Debate has its own rules - here is a fact from source X, here is a fact from source Y ... I think if you put that together, the only conclusion is Z.

[balam]

DO NOT believe everything you read or hear when it comes to a copyright notice. Sometimes the notice represents what the holder wants and not what the holder is actually entitled to.

For an excellent, barely-month-old example, search for "wendy NFL copyright". According to the National Football League (of America), while it is a fact, I can't tell you who the winner of the final game of the season, nor what the score of that game was - unless I obtain their permission first.