Does DMOZ have any copyright on directory structure or content?

Are you calling DMOZ a dead horse?

Which ones? Any proof that any of descriptions are original work by the author and not copied by the editor from some other place? How does DMOZ plan to prove to the court that the editor is the original author when there is no real way for DMOZ to know who the editor is? If the copyright is not on the whole and instead on each description by itself, those descriptions are too short to be copyrighted.

After all your claims about the originality of descriptions in your previous posts and I posting proof to the contrary, I can understand why you would like to keep your posts short.

 

I meant the discussions in here - they seem to go 'round and 'round. Someone please stop the merry-go-round before I get sick.

 

Providing they are ORIGINAL AND UNIQUE...

...in case you missed that the first dozen times I said it...

 

Actually is going on very straight line, Just to make it simpler for you, so you don't get confused:

1- It is shown that directory structure was copied from USENET and it is just common words that can not be copyrighted.

2- It is shown that the titles in DMOZ are copied from the listed web sites or are business names, so obviously DMOZ can not have any copyright on it.

3- It is shown that some of the descriptions in DMOZ are half ass copies from different web sites and also the authors(editors) are unknown on the rest of the descriptions, so there is no way to confirm that they are original authors and have any rights to assign to DMOZ in the first places.

Therefore the only possible copyright DMOZ can claim is the use of DMOZ.org in combination with color green which is actually not a copyright but a trademark.

I hope this summarization of this thread has helped you to have a better understanding of the subject of this thread.

 

LOL.

Minstrel, I find it funny you are chiding me like that, as I was really arguing against the OP and agreeing with your viewpoint.

I guess I should have directed my comments at a quote or member name...

 

I hate to disagree with you - but

1 - A small portion of the structure was copied from USENET, not the entire structure. Here's one example of a difference: I came up with this category, with help in placement, and it doesn't exist anywhere else except in the ODP and copies that have been made within the last month and a half. It is unique.

2. DUH - guidelines state that the title of a listing is the title of a website. However, I don't believe the copyright applies to just a title, or a string of titles.

3a. No one has ever said that some of the descriptions are not guidelines compliant. That's why there are QC threads, both internally and externally. That's why there are editor education threads, emails, newsletters, etc. I happened to mention click through editing in a thread not long ago. I'll find it if you can't remember it. However, that is a small portion of the directory listings.

3b. Authors are unknown on the rest of them - that's straight bs. I know what I've written and a number of other editors can recognize my editing style too. Here are a few examples - please find where those descriptions appear anywhere on the websites.

Lash's Lessons - The story of a Gypsy horse named Lash. Includes cast of characters, coloring sheets, photos, and locations where Lash has visited.

The Captains Lady - Offers weight loss and stress syndrome management, aura balancing techniques, and self discovery through Tarot. Contains information on books she has written, list of services, and tips. Offers online support. Located in Steilacoom, Washington.

Rylee Shae Genther - Rylee is a two year old in Tacoma, Washington, fighting leukemia. Contains information about leukemia, her history, videos, and photos.

Now if you were to take just one of them separate and apart from the rest, then it might be difficult to claim copyright. Because it's just possible that someone else might come up with the same or similar words describing one of those sites. But to take an entire category and have it look the exact same as the one that I built in the directory? That's my original work - no one else did it first. There is no way that anyone can claim that they created the same category, with the same sites, and the same descriptions. That's just one category.

 

And you're also claiming copyright on the category name too?

 

Not just one category name - the combination of category names. For example if you take a slice of the directory structure that includes only the United States. That can be copyrighted. All the category titles, @links, relcats together. That represents original work.

Or you slice off the top - say go two (or three or ...) levels deep. Where else can you find the same structure (except in copies of the ODP)?

It's not just one title that editors came up with to describe one category - but the way every title comes together.

My point in the previous post was that that particular category wasn't copied from anywhere (which is only one of the categories in the ODP that wasn't copied from anywhere).

 

Not a hope, lmocr.

I have no interest in creating Yet Another General Web Directory but I can tell you if I did and had any wish to use the DMOZ category names I wouldn't lose a second's sleep worrying about litigation by AOL.

 

Good! Your YAGWD might end up getting one of them there cute lil' pink notes and listed in the "License Agreement Violators" category that nobody in the real world can see.

 

Whatever the hell that is...

 

My understanding is that there's an internal category where they license violators - those that don't provide attribution when using any part of the directory structure, or content - such as copying titles and descriptions.

You get one of them pretty 'lil pink notes so that a junior editor won't mistakenly add your site to the public directory. Or if it was listed it gets removed.

So if you were to create a directory using the orignal author's title and meta description as gworld has pointed out, you might end up getting banned at dmoz for copying their titles and descriptions.

 

Oh, no! I'd be ruined!!

Thanks for that explanation, CReed.

 

Since you are already admitting that at least part of categories, titles and description are copies from other source which are possibly infringing on other people's copyright, do you also mean that if I take a Hemingway book and add couple of my own sentences here and there, then I can claim copyright on it?

Let's for a minute imagine that DMOZ tries to enforce this imaginary copyright, the first thing anyone will ask is, what part are original and what part are copies? Do you think DMOZ can separate all the listings between original and copy?You have by your own admission accepted that a large part of DMOZ is just half ass copy of other sites, surely even you, can undertsand that therefore you can not claim copyright on the whole content including copies that DMOZ have no right to.

Next you claim that you are original author, who are you? is there any proof that you are the original author and not only some one claiming to be the author? DMOZ has to provide documentation on each piece that they claim they have copyright on. Good luck with that when they don't even know the real identity of editors in many cases.

The next question will be, how can DMOZ complain about copyright infringement when DMOZ is actually copying other people web site? Doesn't this actually opens DMOZ to law suits from another companies?

 

It is AOL and their legal department who are claiming copyright on the entire work nothwithstanding that there are clearly some elements within it that are not theirs to copyright. I can't see them coming here, having a discussion about it, conceding defeat, and making everyone happy.

 

...or going to court and suing anyone over it.

Thank you, brizzie.
__________________

 

No pumpkin, that's not it at all. The fact that you can find some descriptions that are not guideline compliant doesn't alter the fact that all the descriptions for all the sites I've listed are original work. The same applies to most other editors.

 

This was not what you said previously when you claimed that NONE of descriptions were copied. If this is the case and your descriptions are original, then my suggestion will be that DMOZ should contact you to get proper identification documents, affidavit that you are the original author of all the texts and you assign the rights to them. Then may be, they can claim that they have copyright on your writings if it is original enough.

As far as the rest of DMOZ is concerned, in my opinion DMOZ can not claim any copyright on category titles, web site titles or descriptions according to present copyright laws in USA or Canada but may be they can try their luck with copyright laws in Timbuktu.

 

Wow, what a boring thread. I might have missed it since I did fall asleep a few times but why is gworld worried about the copy right of DMOZ directory structure or content?

Beer me please!

 

I don't think anyone ever denied there were some elements they couldn't copyright, e.g. site titles, description that are a straight take from a site, and individual words in category titles. The rest is up to a judge if AOL ever did decide to test their claims.