Hacker News Reader

Comment by kube-system | Hacker News Reader

Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts.

The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.

View on HN

There are all sorts of “likeness rights” though, which are often lumped with copyrights and trademarks.

A model has rights for her likeness not to be used to promote something without her or him getting paid. It could be put under the same umbrella that no one has rights for my data.

Yes, I agree, this is a more appropriate angle. Someone who invokes their right of publicity is generally making a claim that someone has violated trademark law. This is NOT a modification to copyright law, though -- both rights exist concurrently. A photographer who takes a photo of a trademark retains the copyright to the photo, and the owner of the mark concurrently owns the trade rights to the mark.

To my point -- this idea is entirely a separate concept from copyright law. It is not a modification to copyright law.

When I surf the information superhighway I create a unique data trail which is a unique expression created by me. I therefore claim copyright over the content of that data trail.

If you actually humanly typed out the sentence: "My time zone is UTC, my IP address is 127.0.0.1, and my default language is set to English" that sentence would be subject to copyright.

However, since the facts themselves are still not subject to copyright, someone can still legally (as far as copyright is concerned) take your sentence and run:

    INSERT INTO data_trail (username, timezone, ip_address, language)
    VALUES ("itronitron", "UTC", "127.0.0.1", "English");

Also, there is no need to "claim" copyright to anything. It is automatic.

I understand that bare facts cannot be copyrighted but IMO, a better test in this case is to ask whether the information has any monetary value? Because once it is under the posession of the data brokers, it's aggregated and traded like chattel.

If you were to add to title 17: "facts are subject to copyright protection if they have monetary value" -- you still have not solved the problem. Again, copyright doesn't apply to the subject of a work, it applies to the one who created it.

Also, your proposed change has made most of Wikipedia illegal.

So you're saying we can't change the law?

We can certainly make new one (or potentially modify consumer protection law) to protect privacy. There's no part of copyright law that makes sense to change that would do the thing GP is asking for. It is an entirely different concept.

If I take a photograph of any part of reality, I have copyright on the image. I'd say most images contain not much more than a reproduction of reality.

If I type my name into a computer, isn't that a reproduction of reality just live a photograph of me would be?

And I agree with you that pure facts are not copyrightable, but how about Facebook making a guess that I like cats based on my previous click behavior? Isn't that an artistic interpretation of reality which should be copyrightable?

Your name alone is a fact, and wouldn't be subject to copyright. For example, I can say "Donald Trump" in this comment without infringing on any copyright laws.

> how about Facebook making a guess that I like cats based on my previous click behavior? Isn't that an artistic interpretation of reality which should be copyrightable?

Once they record it somewhere, it is!

I'll give you an example:

Take for instance this string value: "fxtentacle is likes cats and I know it because he posted it on HN"

I have generated this string, and under US (and many other countries) copyright laws, I automatically own copyright to it, because it is my artistic interpretation of what I have observed.

You have no copyright to it, because it was my artistic interpretation, despite the fact that you are the subject of the art.

So by your logic, my parents should be able to sue data mining companies to vindicate their copyright claim on my data?

Because you were created by your parents?

Not exactly sure what your argument is, but if you want to know what qualifies as a "creative work", the law conveniently defines it in 17 U.S. Code § 102(a).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

Reply on news.ycombinator.com