Re: [edict-jmdict] Indicating 高低アクセント

[Glenn Maynard <g_yhoo@********>]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:10:56AM +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
> > http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#Feist
> 
> Interesting, but that ruling applies to names and phone numbers listed
> in alphabetical order. The rest of that page is talking about examples
> where compilations *are* covered by copyright (e.g. a selection of quotes).

That's the strict precedent it sets, but it's a landmark ruling with
broad effects on copyright.

> You could perhaps argue that any very large dictionary, by virtue of
> being comprehensive, is not being selective and therefore cannot be
> copyrighted. But I doubt Jim wants to bet the edict project on that
> argument :-).

Not at all.  A dictionary contains definitions (or glosses in a glossary,
in this case) and example sentences, both of which are creative original
works.  That's precisely why they're copyrightable under Feist.  I
can't see any originality involved in a database of pitch accent data.

"IANAL", of course, means that I don't know if there are any other
relevant SCOTUS rulings since then, or anything else relevant; you
can't determine copyright from a single ruling.  But at least, I
don't see anything that doesn't put this squarely under Feist v. Rural.

-- 
Glenn Maynard