Does DMOZ have any copyright on directory structure or content?

What part of the book can be copyrighted? Show me based on what part of the copyright law you are posting this?

I base my arguments on copyright laws and post a link to the source, do the same if you want to discuss it.

 

I'm basing it on the FACT that every book of quotes I've ever seen has been copyrighted. Even those dumb mini-books have a copyright in them, and those are nothing but a series of one liners. Are you saying thats just a conspiracy of publishers? Are you honestly saying that if DMOZ published itself it could not be copyrighted, but that a book of quotes can be?

Your original points:
Who can claim Authorship?
Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
That would be DMOZ claiming the rights of the editors, which would stand up in court, as it is implied in their signing up that they are volunteering their services to the greater whole (which is copyrighted).

What is protected?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression.
As a whole it is original, the clone sites are not original. As is a book of quotes.

What is not protected?
Things that can pretty much fall under other laws such as trademark, etc. Like the DMOZ name, logo, and catch phrase. Though the site as a whole certainly does not fall under a "short phrase", Title, Name, or what have you as your original post implies.

I do not need to provide links, you were kind enough to do that for me. However, I have dealt with Copyright issues in the past from both sides of the court room, as well as through correspondence with the Copyright office itself. Anyone that has read the copyright laws should know that you have quoted what was needed to make it look like you could prove a point...but your points are moot on the whole and your entire logic is flawed.

The database of DMOZ is copyrightable in that it is “formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#website ~ Dig deep

 

Are they the authors? look in this thread, there is no proof that editors are ORIGINAL authors and have any right to give. I have shown all the copy & paste in response to Annie post in this thread.

It is not original. The whole category structure is based on work sponsored by Federal government which is not possible to copyright and DMOZ has no right to it.

At least read the thread before posting the same things.

 

NOTHING in a book of quotes is original.

A book of quotes is a list of quotes in no particular order, after the first was published, according to you, all others lost their right to be copyrighted.

Again, the work as a whole IS original.

I did. You keep skipping my point about the book of quotes, so I keep needing to bring it up...You must be in the rev sharing here. Your earnings through not saying anything must be astounding!

 

It doesn't matter, the import point is that quotes or in this case, the content can not be copyrighted. Let's say a book of quotes has 500 quotes in it and I decide to copy 450 of the quotes and put it in another book, is the publisher of first book going to sue me for the quotes which they don't own from beginning?
People import the category structure and the content to their own web site, database and scripts which changes the work. It is not the original work anymore, it is just another book of quotes.

 

In the case of a book of quotes where none of the individual quotes are in and of themselves copyrighted and another book uses 450 of them in the same order, then it could certainly go to court if the only thing that was changed was the removal of 50 of the quotes.

The majority of the descriptions are written by the editor, not the submitter. That makes the better majority of the descriptions unique and originating within the ODP structure. If you take their database and use it to your own ends and try to copyright it, it can make it in front of a judge, and if it's found to be a direct copy with only a structural change, then I'm betting on the original winning in the case. Even beyond the issue of copyright, as there is a license agreement that goes with using the ODP data.

 

FWIW: As far as I can tell this is like preachers arguing over the nature of heaven or hell. Until they get where they're going they can't prove it, but it won't stop 'em from trying.

Far as I can tell copyrights serve primarily as a deterrent to keep some from swiping ideas, structure, material. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it's useless to argue later if you let it get violated without question previously.

Copyright battles have been won or lost on such subjective issues as "look and feel" (Visicalc vs Lotus 123, Lotus vs Excel). Until a copyright is exposed to a court case it is anyone's guess if it'll be upheld.

Guess what I'm saying is there isn't an end to this argument. Hate to see Q lose time trying to win it, cause if you were arguing that 4+4=8 I suspect Gworld would persist on the other side even if you mailed him a bag of calculators. Granted I'd probably stay here and argue with him for sport, but my sanity is questionable anyway. Bottom line, nobody's gonna nail this one down with a compelling case in a forum.

My 2 cents. YMMV

 

Doubt it, you can't copyright phone book either, I should know since I've tried to remove some info from wikipedia copy/pasted from my website but got only lousy nofollow backlink as compensation.

 

We are talking about web sites and Internet where there is no fixed order, a list can be sorted and presented based on record number, alphabet or any other arbitrary sort method.

And for the thousand time, the category structure of DMOZ is derivative work from previous work that DMOZ has no right to it and copyright on derivative works stays with the original authors. In This case the original work was a part of research financed by Federal government.

 

By that standard, I can not copyright my blog, as it's structured on Wordpress architecture. So I guess we can just ignore all that fancy editor written content can't we

 

No you can't copyright wordpress script because you change a color in the template.

 

I'm not talking about the template, I'm talking about the text. The ORIGINAL text written by a series of Editors for a larger project. So what does it matter what color the thing is? Are you really trying to say that the content of a wordpress blog can not be copyrighted?

 

Not if you have RSS feeder that copies it from other sites.

 

So, if it is written by one or more contributing authors then it can be copyrighted, even though it's structuring is based on something that is not original. Though can not be if it is pulled from the original source, rendering it non-original ~ as in the DMOZ clones.

So tell me, why can't DMOZ be copyrighted again?

It's using a base that is not theirs but it has original authors that have contributed the bulk of it's content.

 

No it can not, it is called derivative work. The copyright stays with original author.

even if we forget that business name, short phrases,... can not be copyrighted, a derivative work can only have a copyright if you have permission of all ORIGINAL AUTHORS to include their work in your derivative work. For example I can not make a book including all Hemingway, Dickens books and then claim copyright on it.

Take out all the category names that are common words or copied from USENET, take out all titles and description that are directly from listed web site, business name or through submission form with unidentified author and then look at what you are left with.

 

Take a dictionary, take out all of the words which can not be copyrighted, and take out all of the definitions of those words, as they have all been defined before, and tell me what you have left.

A dictionary with a copyright notice.

*shrug*

I'm done here, it's clear that a dictionary can be copyrighted, though the format has all been done before. It's clear that a book of phrases and a book of quotes both have copyrights...it's also apparently clear that DMOZ can't

 

What part of the word original don't you undertsand?