4099Re: [baseball-databank] Re: Digest Number 1186
- Apr 10, 20111. It's important to note that facts are not copyrightable, but the
arrangements of those facts are, as long as the arrangement is not
obvious. That is, the original or creative *expression* of facts is
protected, and not the facts themselves. (Feist v Rural, which is the
phone book case.)
2. With regards to the copyright issue, there's always a debate as to
contract law v copyright law, as to when does one supersede the other.
So, Pete Palmer could spend all his time collecting factual biographical
data, and store it in a non-creative manner (like a phone book). And if
he licenses that data to SABR, SABR may be limited to the contract
provisions, even if the arrangement of this data itself is not
copyrightable. Basically, SABR is allowing contract law to supersede it's
(possible) rights under copyright.
There is no clear guidelines here, and really, it's up to a court to
decide on a case-by-case basis.
I think we can accept that if SABR is going to adhere to the licensing
terms of the contract, then let's just respect that, for our discussion
purposes here, that contract law supersedes copyright law. Even if it
didn't, SABR is not going to challenge it, because they respect the
contract provisions that Pete has set forth.
As I noted earlier, SABR brings to the table:
1. bio data
2. non-Retro data
3. minor league data
And I think it would be helpful to all the members here to understand the
limitations of each of those three pieces of property.
Is the SABR bio committee constrained by whatever deal they have with Pete
and/or Gary? If so, then that's fine, let's respect that, and move on to
some other solution. If the constraint is flexible enough that the bio
data can be licenced to the BDB group, then let's hear what conditions
would be in place for that.
And who's the best person to answer that? Is it FX? Is it someone else
at SABR? Is it whoever is in charge of the Bio committee?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>