Does DMOZ have any copyright on directory structure or content?

For those of you who do not like to read long posts, the short answer in my opinion is NO.

This thread is the result of discussion in another thread but I thought it deserves a separate thread in order to clarify the situation. It is ODP position that they have a copyright on DMOZ category structure and content but in my opinion, this is not supported by the copyright laws. Some of the notable areas of problems are as follows:

1)
WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

Problems:

• Who is the author?
• Is it the editor?
• Is there a valid contract to transfer the rights to DMOZ from the editor?
• Is there a valid contract to transfer the right of category structure from USENET to DMOZ since it is copied from USENET?

2)
WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?

Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression.


Problems:

• Is the person submitting a site to DMOZ original author that has the right to give DMOZ the right to use his work or someone else that has no such right?
• Is editor the author or editor simply copied the title and description from the site and has no right to transfer the rights?

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

3)
WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases

Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:

Names of products or services
Names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the name of a group of performers)
Names of pseudonyms of individuals (including pen name or stage name)
Titles of works
Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions
Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains uncopyrightable.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html

Problems:

I think the problems with this section is quite clear, don't you?

In conclusion, In my opinion there is no valid copyright for DMOZ directory structure or content.

 

AFAIK, gworld, neither you nor I nor anyone else one posting here is a copyright lawyer who can offer an authoritative opinion on the validity of the ODP's copyright protection. I can, however, refer you and others to the official dmoz directives (which were written and/or vetted by copyright lawyers) on the matter of copyright and authorization to use dmoz products, at http://dmoz.org/guidelines/copyright.html and http://dmoz.org/license.html. Here are the excerpts most relevant to discussions here, which I have quoted or paraphrased previously:

Copyright information:

For data users:

Consult the cited URLs for the complete current versions of these legal documents.

 

My answer, the same as in another thread that you posted this:

I hate to break it to you but anyone can claim anything, proving and enforcing it in a court will be totally another matter.
As you know, AOL lawyers do not have the best records of winning cases, as it is proved by hundreds of millions in fines paid to SEC and government.

 

One could bring this thread to an end right here and simply ask, so what? Are you considering going to court, copyright matters are usually complicated, haven't seen any specialist showing up willing to discuss things e.g. here at DP. IMHO, if this is part of some private vendetta I would suggest forget about it.

 

Forum:

A public meeting place for open discussion.
A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas.

Question for the discussion as posted in another thread:

Is it possible to copy DMOZ directory structure?

Opinions expressed:

DMOZ editors: there is a vaild copyright.

My opinion: There is no vaild copyright.

How does a blank statement like yours saying that copyrights are complicated is any help in this discussion?

 

gworld, I am surprised that you deemed it necessary starting a new thread. It is ok with me when you think that there is no valid copyright.
Lets immagine there is no such copyright, why are people so interested in violating this "non-existing" copyright? Again, although I respect your opinion, I don't get at all why this issue poses a problem to you. Can't help but to me it looks like you are just criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

 

The original question was specific to the category but this thread expands it to the content also and makes it possible to discuss more specific of this subject.
People are not interested to violate "non-existing" copyright, they are interested to use the category structure and content of ODP which is as suppose to be according the original idea of ODP as a volunteer based organization.
This is an old discussion regarding the non-profit nature of ODP and the aim of helping the users on the Internet and changing it to commercial interest in the present form. You can search and read about it in different forums.

 

The, was, it, best, of - just a string of words that can't be copyrighted - right?




How about when you string them together like this: It was the best of times ..... (and then add a few thousand more words to it). Then it becomes a copyrighted work by Charles Dickens.



This is no different than discussing isolated category names as opposed to discussing the collective category structure (or large chunks of it).

How about just the first chapter of A Tale of Two Cities - is that copyright? How about a paragraph? I would venture to say yes to both - that you cannot quote a paragraph from the book without giving attribution to Charles Dickens.

Now I'm not implying that the ODP is as much of a literary work of art as that by Charles Dickens - but even lesser well known compilations of words can be (and are) copyrighted. Anyone ever heard of the Bar-Roo Forest?

 

As usual lmocr in her desperate attempts for promotion misses the point. The combination of words in a literary works are unique and by the original authors. DMOZ content is neither unique or by original authors.
The correct comparison will be if I write a book that combines all the Charles Dickens work in one book and then claim copyright for my book and ask anyone who publishes a Dickens book to acknowledge my copyright.

 

Perfect, so as the owner of the ODP I would kick anybody's ass for using either structure or content without giving proper credits.

 

Nope. I keep trying to tell you: You cannot copyright, trademark, or patent something unless it is original and unique. That's the test.

 

As minstrel tried to explain, as the owner of ODP, you don't have any copyright on structure or content and you will only get your own ass kicked if you try.

 

Now you're saying that the directory structure isn't original or unique? Then why is everyone wanting to copy it?

Just because the directory structure is a collaborative work, doesn't mean it can't be copyrighted. I've participated in naming categories - they don't appear all by themselves out of thin air. Where else are you going to find Regional/North_America/Canada/Ontario/Localities/O/Ottawa/ linked to each of it's subcategories, as well as the metro area, the province, and the locality (unless it's a copy of the ODP)? Just because it's been copied numerous times (both with and without attribution), doesn't mean that the original structure defined by the editors is not original.

gworld - if you pay attention to the information in the suggestion form - it states that you give the right to copyright your "words" (in so many words ) - combined title and descripition to the ODP. So there goes the argument about the title and description written by the suggesting party and not by the editors.

 

As you acknowledged somewhere this is only your opinion. And you might be right. On the other hand orlady is obliged as an ODP Admin, if she is going to post at all, to provide the AOL position and not undermine it. AOL might be right. Unless and until someone tests it in court/appeal/different jurisdictions, who actually knows what the result would be. So what is the point of what would appear to be a debate that can never end until tested? The point originally was someone wanting to use the structure and there appears to be two diametrically opposed opinions - he must make his decision and take his chances one way or another. Does he think AOL will seek to enforce what it clearly sees as its copyright and if so what are the consequences, win or lose.

 

Who is "everyone"? And didn't DMOZ copy it to begin with?

But AOL does not say anywhere in the documents orlady mentioned anything about the specifics of what they are trying to claim is copyright. More to the point, nothing in those documents attempts to claim that the category labels are copyright - or that the color of the directory pages is copyright.

One more time: The principle is simple. You cannot copyright, trademark, or patent something that is not original and unique. This isn't rocket science and you do not need to be a lawyer to understand that simple principle.

 

There is very seldom any definite end to any discussion when there is two or many opposing views but it does not mean that it should not be discussed. Even testing this theory in one jurisdiction will not be a definite answer since it can result in a totally different verdict in different jurisdiction or court.
The point in discussing this subject or any other subject for that matter, is to research, discuss and gather enough information that each person who is participating in the discussion or has an interest in the subject, can from an informed opinion and make a decision, what ever it might be.

 

Ok then - here's some more information

found on the bottom of http://www.dmoz.org.

 

Here is more information for you:

Pigs fly.

Do you see any pigs flying around?

 

And what exactly is it on the page that is copyright, lmocr?

 

Sorry, as far as I can see the only piece of information that would matter would be the results of a case AOL brought against someone it deemed in breach of its copyright. Since it hasn't happened, not is there any similar actual case of a directory suing someone for using a structure it considers to be its copyright, I think you are at a dead end. Everyone agree to disagree and go about their business. If someone decides to test AOL and AOL bites then you have some new information to add.

Different people read things different ways but the copyright page definitely mentions directory organization which I would interpret to include the categories as a whole, not a single category name, but a chunk or its entirety such that it is certain to be a copy and not something anyone could reasonably come up with independently. I assume that is the AOL intention as well. Again though the case would have to be brought and tested for anyone to be able to be categoric about the legal position.