Let's even assume that they are copyrighted, what are they going to do about it? Do you even know anything about copyright laws?
Exactly. Most likely the only use AOL has for DMOZ is to book it as an asset in it's books in order to inflate the share price. Any legal action in this matter will generate no financial gain according to copyright laws and will open a can of worm about legitimacy of any copyright claim that AOL might or might not have which can force AOL to remove this as an asset and devalue the stocks. Therefore all talk about copyright is hypothetical and in reality no copyright exists, except in DMOZ editors head.
In response to the original question, the ODP directory structure is one aspect of the data that is covered by copyright. The structure can be freely used, but ODP asks that you give proper credit to the project (adding a credit line should not be particularly onerous). See http://editors.dmoz.org/license.html for details. It is correct that the directory structure originally came from Usenet, but it would be equally correct to say that the English language originally came from German. There has been a huge amount of modification and expansion of the skeletal structure that was borrowed from Usenet, including the pruning away of some oddball Usenet structures like Recreation/Ponds, addition of many additional categories and levels, and addition of category structures for numerous non-English languages. The vast majority of the current directory structure was crafted by the Open Directory Project volunteers and former staff.
Please explain how and why you think DMOZ can claim a copyright on categories like "Arts/Movies/Awards/" or "Computers/Internet/", orlady. And what you think you or anyone else can claim as damages if I use those categories in my directory... And, just out of curiosity, does DMOZ give an award for "Lamest Editor" or "Most Obtuse Editor"? I have a few suggestions... They seem to have awards for everything else - it's like Kindergarten: make sure no child goes home without an award. Uh-oh. What have we got left? Oh yes. Here's an award for "Editor With No Other Awards, 2006" - that'll do.
Obviously, no entity can claim copyright on individual elements of a directory, such as Computers/Internet or Arts/Movies/Awards, for the same reason that you can't copyright two notes from a piece of music. However, it is a different matter when a person is borrowing the entire directory structure (or a large part of it). There's no point in getting bent out of shape over the copyright claim -- it's a royalty-free license. All a user needs to do is give credit where credit is due.
I'll try again, this time with an example. The Dewey Decimal Classification is a system of classifying books. The ODP directory structure is a system for classifying websites. Got that. Good. Now take a deep breath. The Dewey Decimal System is copyright. So is the ODP directory structure. What bit do you not understand? Would a picture help?
The Dewey Decimal System is unique and original. The ODP directory structure is not. The Dewey Decimal System is copyright. The ODP directory structure is not. What bit do you not understand? Would a picture help?
How is the ODP directory structure is not unique? Every directory is different (barring plagiarism). Same with the various systems for classifying books You do understand the meaning of the word unique?
What the hell is unique about it? Have you ever looked at the hundreds or thousands of other directories on the net? Or even the dozen or so major ones? Or are you just stuck there in your pathetic little DMOZ back room thinking that what you do actually has some meaning? You do understand the difference between "direcetory structure" and "directory content", don't you? You do understand the meaning of the phrase "clueless troll" as applied to neb the editor, don't you?
My you are one of the stubborn people I have ever encountered. EvcRo in the first post asked is whether he could copy the DMOZ directory structure that was made in the "pathetic little DMOZ back room". He did not want to copy any of "the hundreds or thousands of other directories" on the net. You obviously think is EvcRo is an raving loony for wanting to copy the DOMZ directory structure. But that is what we are talking about. Sorry. You are unable to intimidate me with your bullying tactics.
The directory content has no copyright either. Many of DMOZ titles and descriptions are direct copy of the listed web site title and description. You can not take other people works, combine it and then claim copyright on it.
Intersting reading, i will continue to watch this thread because the info is relevant. I decided to "inspire" myself as deep as i want from the dmoz directory structure. if they have a problem with that then fine, maybe ill give them a line of credit or maybe not. and, probably, they cant claim anything because i decided also not to copy the structure 100% because is not perfect and i dont need 100,000 categories atm ... I have this attitude since i noticed that my site isnt listed in DMOZ (submited 2 months ago) but some pointless 1 page broken fansites for other online games are listed in dmoz. So i dont take them to seriously ... Thanks for all the info!
No doubt you are also an expert on copyright law. AOL/Netscapes attorneys think you can. This discussion is going nowhere.
Do you mean the same attorneys and accounts that fixed the books, got nailed by SEC and other government agencies for everything between heaven and earth and had to pay hundreds of millions in fines? Obviously they weren't very good, don't you agree? 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. Subject Matter of Copyright Copyright protection under the copyright code (title 17, section 102, U.S. Code) extends only to “original works of authorship.†The statute states clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html
You've managed to get your little self confused about or totally miss every point in this thread in your pathetic rush to protect DMOZ and its "directory structure". Can you please just go away now, neb?
minstrel, could you please stop playing schoolyard bully? Your behavior in this forum is unbecoming in an adult and (IMO) makes you an embarrassment to your profession. Back to the topic: AFAIK, no one participating in this discussion is a lawyer specializing in the intellectual property law of any country. The law of copyright (and intellectual property, in general) can be very arcane, and there is nothing gained from a bunch of amateurs arguing its technicalities. However, I think most of us should be able to understand and honor the ODP copyright by referring back to a fundamental principle we learned in our school days: don't plagiarize. When you incorporate someone else's work into your own work, give credit to your sources.
Translation: OOPS. There is no copyright, let's not talk about it. There is already something gained from this thread; it made it clear that there is no copyright on category structure or content of DMOZ. You mean the same way that category structure was copied from USENET and titles and description are copied from listed sites or submitted by webmasters that DMOZ tries to CLAIM copyright on.