tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post4503707609754835885..comments2023-09-29T08:51:56.163-07:00Comments on Coyle's InFormation: Friends of HathiTrustKaren Coylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-79023839554769448792012-07-17T07:00:24.449-07:002012-07-17T07:00:24.449-07:00Kevin, I don't think that it was implied anywh...Kevin, I don't think that it was implied anywhere in the post that human-produced metadata is, by definition, copyrightable. My comment about human-created bibliographic data was about the source of the data, not the rights. It is important that the description of the technology within the brief be accurate, and unfortunately there are lapses. I find that throughout they confuse the direct output of digitization with uses that have been made of it, such as calculation of term frequency.<br /><br />The <i>Amicus</i> brief is arguing that data derived from a textual work is not within the copyright of the original (pre-digitized) work. They do not speak at all about any ownership over what they are calling the "metadata." It is an interesting question -- and one that has not been addressed, AFAIK -- whether the results of computational research on the corpus can themselves be copyrighted. Doing something like advanced linguistic research that happens to use computer programs could well be considered creative enough for copyright to apply to the programs, but I don't know if one can claim copyright in the resulting data. I haven't looked into this, but I believe that this question has come up in scientific research.<br /><br />In terms of human-created library metadata, I have to say that I have trouble seeing library cataloging as mere "sweat of the brow." If it were that, we wouldn't need 1500 pages of cataloging rules, with a lot of "if...then." Like complex data extraction, library cataloging requires complex decision-making. The end result may still be considered purely factual, but I am always struck by the sheer complexity of the activity -- maybe "sweat of the brain" would be a better term.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-12013032204198951842012-07-17T06:01:43.975-07:002012-07-17T06:01:43.975-07:00The fact that a creation if human-produced does no...The fact that a creation if human-produced does not make it copyrightable under US law. The telephone book is the classic example of something produced by a human ("sweat of the brow") but not copyrightable as a compilation (because it has no "modicum of creativity").Kevin Hawkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07725552620057595725noreply@blogger.com