Can FAQs Be Copyrighted? 139
scubacuda writes: "Are FAQs copywritable? Judge Barbara B. Crabb, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in the case Mist-On Systems, Inc. v. Gilley's European Tan Spa, didn't think so."
FAQ (Score:1)
The court didn't say you can't copyright an FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
If the FAQ had been swiped, with answers copied verbatim, it would have been a different ruling. The court ruled the competitor's FAQ was sufficiently different to not be an infringement, or so the article you point at said.
So this is much ado over nothing.
A word to the editors (Score:5, Insightful)
This court case is so banal it doesn't even deserve mention. The plaintiff was suing the defendant on the grounds that it basically ripped off the idea of having a FAQ at all, which is about as asinine as having one publisher sue another for putting a synopsis on the back of a book. It wasn't even over whether one FAQ was a copy of the other - they didn't cover the same questions or use the same answers to those questions that were the same.
What's next, Slashdot posting an article about a court ruling that it is indeed legal for everyone to write books about how to use computer software without paying royalties to O'Rielly?
Re:A word to the editors (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A word to the editors (Score:2)
Not so sure about that one... What if the lawyer that wrote a similar named FAQ (for the benefit of his fellow landsharks) takes offense, and sues you? You'd trigger frivolous legal action, rather than prevent some ;-)
Re:A word to the editors (Score:1)
Re:A word to the editors (Score:2)
Which you could then put into the FAQ ...
I'm sure I should be able to contrive a "Russell's Paradox" out of that, but nothing springs to mind.
What about the submitter? (Score:1)
Re:A word to the editors (Score:2, Informative)
banal, yes, but I wouldn't say it doesn't deserve mention. it does deserve being described correctly, though.
it reminds me of a local free computer magazine/ad rag that sued a new rival. their complaint? the rival had a list of local BBSes, which "clearly" had been invented by the first computer rag.
rather than fight, the new struggling computer rag stopped carrying BBS listings. they later folded.
cases like these deserve mention because we need to convince people of the need to fight idiotic IP claims like this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A word to the editors (Score:2)
Re:A word to the editors (Score:1)
I only accept cookies from the same origin of the page.
Re: The court didn't say you can't copyright an FA (Score:2, Interesting)
Even the FAQ presentation can be protected, as intelectual creation.
Re: The court didn't say you can't copyright an FA (Score:3, Informative)
As the parent correctly states, the court did not say FAQs are not copyrightable, it said there was no copyright infringment in this case. Here is the gist of the article (pasted):
According to the court, "when the two works are compared side-by-side, similarities are evident." That is because "both web pages utilize the Frequently Asked Questions format," "both web pages use common words to begin each question, such as 'how,' 'can,' 'is,' 'what,' and 'will,'" and because "both web pages focus on a spray-on form of sunless tanning" and "provide similar information."
Notwithstanding the foregoing similarities, the court held that "these superficial similarities fall short of proving copying" because they are not the equivalent of copying constituent elements of the work that are original. According to the court and prior case law, regardless of the "original authorship" contained in a work, "the facts and ideas it exposes are free for the taking."
Actually, the court DID say.you can't (Score:1)
Taking it a step further, the court held that "a business cannot copyright a Frequently Asked Questions page"
There's nothing unclear about that whatsoever. The "Taking it a step further" part implies that in addition to disallowing copyright of the format or key phrases of typical FAQ questions, the court also disallows copyright of the entire FAQ page.
If you ask me, the court was trying to flex its muscles and make a decision that would have a long lasting effect on the internet. Perhaps the judge is going to retire soon and is worrying about what kind of legacy he leaves behind. But either way, they really overstepped their bounds. Not that I'm a lawyer, but this seems to contradict all forms of copyright law I've ever read about.
Agreed (Score:2)
I didn't think so either; that's why I submitted the article!
If you ask me, the court was trying to flex its muscles and make a decision that would have a long lasting effect on the internet.
Agreed. I posted it because it's often the most *insignificant* rulings that subsequent lawyers draw on to later decisions.
Not that I'm a lawyer, but this seems to contradict all forms of copyright law I've ever read about.
Agreed here too. A lot seems very counterintuitive to how one might ordinarily interpret copyright law.
Re:Actually, the court DID say.you can't (Score:2)
Well, someone might put together the FAQ document, but it not wholly their work. The questions in some part come from the people asking the questions. When was the last time you saw a FAQ with the list of peope asking the questions (thus giving credit to the author of the question(s))? I haven't. Probably, to give credit where it is due, only the first few authors would have to be listed, and the rest might be represented by et. al. (or something like that). I not 100% sure on that point.
The main item is that the person, persons, or company that puts together the FAQ document did not entirely author the document themselves. SO why should they be able to get the copyright when they are not giving credit to everyone who deserves credit (which is required for books, magazines, etc.).
FAQ documents should not be copyrighted.
Re:Actually, the court DID say.you can't (Score:2, Insightful)
Compilations of information and the exact expression of that information is definitely copyrightable. Not only that, but the answers to those questions are obviously not common knowledge or else so many people would not be asking them. The fact is, someone put time into creating the document, answering the questions, and publishing the work. There was some thinking involved in selecting the appropriate questions, but also in categorizing and answering them in a way that would convey the information clearly.
One must think about the reason for copyright law in the first place. The laws are created to encourage the sharing of knowledge. Without copyright protection, the company might not want to publish their FAQ. They would be worried that someone would steal their work and claim it as their own. In this case, many obvious questions would inevitably go unanswered.
The court was justified in saying that the format and conventions used in creating a FAQ is simply a standardization on the best known method of representing the answers to commonly-asked questions. Denying that the format is copyrightable was adequate in this case since it addressed the issues that needed to be addressed. That's all they needed to say.
What the court added to this, however, was completely uncalled for. The court said that the particular publication was not copyrightable simply because it was a FAQ. So are you saying that by naming it a FAQ, the author waives all right to copyrighting the document? So the author could just change the name of the document to "Frequently-given-answers" -- would that be sufficient to now be able to copyright the work? Even if so, this would be counterproductive, since people can no longer used the word FAQ as a keyword for searching.
FAQ is simply a convention for naming a type of document with a standardized format. This convention should not be an implicit waiving of copyright priviliges. It's the content that is valuable here, not the format.
Re:Actually, the court DID say.you can't (Score:1)
Yes, they should. The answers (The really important part of a FAQ) are the work of the author(s) - usually listed.
The odd part of the ruling, to me, was that it only applied to business.
MIKE
Re:Actually, the court DID say.you can't (Score:2)
Re:Actually, the court DID say.you can't (Score:1)
Nope. After re-reading the article, I can safely say that nothing later in the article contradicts that statement, although nothing else in the article supports it.
So that essentially leaves me wondering what justifies this completely outrageous decision. As you point out, the article unfortunately does not elaborate further on this. It does not, however, contradict the statement.
Re:Actually, the court DID say.you can't (Score:1)
The court swatted away this argument by noting the differences between the two Web pages
In other words:
the court held that "these superficial similarities fall short of proving copying"
Re:Actually, the court DID say.you can't (Score:1)
Read it in context next time. (Score:2)
It's (mostly) about verbatim copying (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's (mostly) about verbatim copying (Score:2, Informative)
Q: I recieve a Non System Disk error everytime I boot my machine?
A: Remove Floppy from Drive A: and press any key to continue.
disclaimer: I know there are other causes of this error, this is the most common and is only given to serve as an example. Therefore, don't go on a tagent trying to elaborate. =)
So with that given, how can you write that differently than the 1,000's of other sites who carry the same question in their respective FAQ's?
Which leaves me with the notion that a lot of today's companies are run by would-be, or even failed, Lawyers. I mean, look at all the time they like spending in courtrooms bickering over lawsuits.
Re:It's (mostly) about verbatim copying (Score:1)
Uniqueness of content (Score:2)
a FAQ on someone like Bill Gates, or Bill Clinton, or GWB, etc would vary greatly depending on the viewpoint of the author. With points for style, this would certainly make it copyrightable.
Re:Uniqueness of content (Score:1)
Morons (Score:1)
But I'm happily able to smile that they got bashed. I wonder how long it'll take until you can copyright your everyday phrases or your dinner-prayer.... sad
Ask scientologists! They'll know if prayers... N/T (Score:1)
Article (Score:4, Informative)
"For every frequently asked question (FAQ) there is an answer. And with respect to the question whether FAQs posted on Web sites are deserving of copyright protection, Judge Barbara B. Crabb, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in the case Mist-On Systems, Inc. v. Gilley's European Tan Spa, on May 2 answered "no." Thus, it appears that lawsuits designed to snuff out the competition by seeking to attack Web content such as FAQs may fail, and if anything, may embolden competitors.
THE ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff Mist-On Systems alleged that defendant Gilley's European Tan Spa infringed on its exclusive rights under the Copyright Act by preparing and displaying on its Web page a page that mirrored the FAQ page on Mist-On's Web site. Mist-On sought monetary and injunctive relief from Gilley's based on the "irreparable harm" it had suffered.
THE COMPETING WEB SITES
Mist-On's Web page, entitled "Mist-On Tanning Frequently Asked Questions," consisted of a single page of 19 questions about the Mist-On Tanning process and provided other related hints.
Gilley's Web page, entitled Gilley's European Tan Spa "FAQ's Sunless Express Spray Spa," comprised three pages of operating instructions and 16 questions about the Sunless Express Spray Spa.
According to the court, "when the two works are compared side-by-side, similarities are evident." That is because "both web pages utilize the Frequently Asked Questions format," "both web pages use common words to begin each question, such as 'how,' 'can,' 'is,' 'what,' and 'will,'" and because "both web pages focus on a spray-on form of sunless tanning" and "provide similar information."
THE COURT'S RULING
Notwithstanding the foregoing similarities, the court held that "these superficial similarities fall short of proving copying" because they are not the equivalent of copying constituent elements of the work that are original. According to the court and prior case law, regardless of the "original authorship" contained in a work, "the facts and ideas it exposes are free for the taking."
Taking it a step further, the court held that "a business cannot copyright a Frequently Asked Questions page" or the words or phrases that comprise such a page because "the format of a Frequently Asked Questions page is a common idea in our society." Indeed, "the elements of a Frequently Asked Questions page (a list of questions beginning with common words) are stereotypical."
Ultimately, Mist-On agreed that it could not copyright the idea of a FAQ page. However, Mist-On argued that because the Gilley's FAQ page was so similar to the Mist-On FAQ page that there must be some copyright infringement.
The court swatted away this argument by noting the differences between the two Web pages, such as the fact that "the sequence, the wording and the number of the questions are different from each other," "five of defendants' questions are entirely unique to their page," "seven of plaintiff's questions are entirely unique to its page," and "the layout of the web page[s] is different." Moreover, "there is no truth to plaintiff's assertion that many of defendants' questions and answers are 'nearly identical' to plaintiff's."
Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment without the need for a trial in favor of defendant Gilley's.
LESSONS LEARNED
Care must be taken in taking legal steps to deal with business competition. Plainly, this particular lawsuit did not help Mist-On in its efforts to deal with competitor Gilley's. Moreover, bad facts can make bad law. Here, the decision to assert copyright infringement for Internet content such as an FAQ page might not have been wise, especially when there truly are distinctions between the Web pages at issue."
Re:Article & who would have thought (Score:2)
Now I know how Wonko the sane [fortunecity.com] felt
Re:Article (Score:1)
Re:Article (Score:1)
Nice.
Re:Article (Score:1)
One can short of a six-pack. (Score:2, Insightful)
Really all the judge found was that the defendant was not guilty of plagiarism (however,
I'd love to hear their argument on how it caused them "irreparable harm". Ha!
Re:One can short of a six-pack. (Score:1)
It's the IDEA of FAQ not copyrightable (Score:5, Informative)
Per the article [law.com]:
(and this is a better link too!)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:It's the IDEA of FAQ not copyrightable (Score:2)
I don't think this was ever seriously at issue, since in legal terms everyone agrees that ideas cannot be copyrighted. Only actual copy can; i.e. something written down. Now, the idea of a FAQ could probably be patented, but that would probably be a very different case.
Heh... Imagine owning a patent on FAQs, RTFMs, RFCs. If you tried to collect you'd be able to piss off the entire Internet in one fell swoop! Unisys, are you guys game?
Re:It's the IDEA of FAQ not copyrightable (Score:1)
This does, however, fly in the face of the modernist educational idea that there really is no absolute correct answer to any question. Obviously, if two FAQ writers come up with similar answers to similar questions, there must be some common determinable reality behind the answers to the questions.
RTFA! (Score:1)
I smell loophole! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Care to release information about the weaknesses of an insecure networking scheme a company refuses to address, details on how your favorite video game console functions, or the inner workings of a local cult? Make it into a FAQ!
;^)
Ryan Fenton
P.S. Yes, I realize this ain't the way it would really be accepted legally - but one can dream.
Obvious sarcasm (Score:2, Funny)
There's no difference (Score:2, Insightful)
In any case, a FAQ is something someone has written, and all forms of creation are (well, should be) subject to copyright.
But the case dealt with is this:
(read more to find out)This decision does not say that FAQs are not subject to copyright though, but that there was no copyright infringement:
So the title of the article is misleading, the court just ruled that there was no copyright infringement because the 2 FAQs were different...
Let's move on... But I think the editors should have taken the time to read the article
"didn't think so" (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though others have clarified the ruling, I think it's worth noting (again?) that the judge did NOT think FAQs were not "copyrightable." In fact, the copy right of any work is automatically bestowed upon the author, but there is a formal procedure as well for registering a copyright.
The judge ruled that there was no copyright infringement. This ruling does not, in any way, imply that FAQs do not deserve copyright protection. It does, however, set the bar reasonably high for proving copyright infringement for a FAQ-style document.
This is a Good Thing. FAQs on vendors'/retailers sites will often have similar information. Think of the thousands of companies that install windows, or who sell nutritional products or cleaning products or pretty much anything manufactured by someone else. Two competitors could reasonably come up with very similar FAQs about that product category and its use, completely independent of each other.
The good news here is that the Court ruled in a reasonable manner, which we might hope will continue when the CBDTPA hits it in a few years...
someone stole my sig!Re:"didn't think so" (Score:3)
In the UK this is just writing "copyright " on the item.
What is the formal procedure in the US?
TWW
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:3, Informative)
If you so desire, you can register it with a copyright agency (such as this one [copyrightservice.co.uk] in the UK), but that's only to establish precedence in case someone claims to have written your stuff before you did. Of course, if you're that paranoid, sending a copy to yourself by registered mail and not opening it is just as safe - and probably a lot cheaper.
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:2)
Mailing a copy to yourself is only (somewhat) usefull in proving whose claim is older. In every real way formally registering is the better way to go.
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:2)
This very well may be true in the UK - but for people in the US, this is bad advice. The court will smile and nod and then throw your 'evidence' out. The reason? It's quite easy to mail a stash of unsealed envelopes to yourself and fill them with letters as the need arises.
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:1)
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:2)
Having a document notorised and left under the care of an attouney may be some protection - but for copyright, here in the US, if you want the protection that registering affords - you simply have to register it. It's not that expensive at all, so comming up with clever schemes is dubious legaly and in balance, expensive. Of course, the UK may be diferent and the courts there will allow mailing stuff to yourself has proof - but here in the US, it's considered a rather entertaining fiction to think that a plantif has no motivation to doctor his own evidence, and will under no cercumstances, open a letter and reseal it.
Just a cultural diference, I suppose. Kind of interesting really.
PS: All spelling mistakes in the previous post are not due to my lazyness, I'm just foloowing my American roots to be creative
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:1)
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:4, Informative)
- Informally by having been written. Automatic copyright.
- Informally, but legally, by putting Copyright (c) year by name.
- Formally by sending $34 and a copy of the work to the Library of Congress copyright department.
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:4, Informative)
I am also not a lawyer, the above should not be interpreted as legal advice.
Re:"didn't think so" (Score:1, Redundant)
Here are the exact words from the FAQ [copyright.gov] of the Library of Congress [loc.gov]:
...and...
and later...
Well duh (Score:2)
Much better to write an OAQ (Often Asked Questions) document, since nobody's done that before. Then you can get your lousy copyright.
Re:Well duh (Score:1)
Re:Well duh (Score:2)
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
According to the court and prior case law, regardless of the "original authorship" contained in a work, "the facts and ideas it exposes are free for the taking."
FAQ's benefit everyone. They're collections of information, often resulting from many users' experiences over time, and they can be an extremely valuable resource. Although the chap who gathers the information together and presents it might well feel a bit miffed if you copied his FAQ and its style exactly without his permission, trying to prevent someone from distributing a FAQ helps no one.
As has been mentioned once or twice on Slashdot, copyright protection is supposed to benefit the public, not particular individuals.
Where's the correct article? (Score:4, Interesting)
The court says that the idea of an FAQ is not copyrightable (good thing), that a list of common questions relating to a certain subject is not copyrightable (good thing), and that in this particular case, the answers where so different that they weren't infringing (we haven't got the lists for side-by-side comparison, so this remains unclear, but there sin't something fishy about it in itself).
To me, it seems that the court made a reasonable decision. In particular, it did not rule that FAQs (which usually include the answers) are never protected by copyright.
Re:Where's the correct article? (Score:1)
I looks like the litigation-happy folks at Mist-On are patent-loving [mist-on.com] jerks. I hate them already.
patents (Score:3, Funny)
Re:patents (Score:2)
The setting: Deep legal waters within US territorial boundries.
The place: Aboard one of the newest vessels in the USPO navy - the FAQ.
The FAQ cruises silently, deep beneath the ocean surface.
Sonar alert! "Captain! We have a multiple contacts bearing 040 degrees! Range - 2500 yards and closing!" The captain calls for periscope depth. The crew responds swiftly. "Periscope depth Sir!" The captain barks "Up periscope!". He scans the horizon. He holds his breath. Can it be? YES! "Commercial FAQ sighted! No - wait..." He pauses a moment... "Men, this is our lucky day. We have found our target, and not merely one, but TWO commercial FAQs already engaged in hostilities! LOAD TORPEDOS! SURFACE! SURFACE!"
The crew scambles! Everyone exept the sonar officer who is strangely intent on his readings. He hesitates, uncertain... Suddenly he shouts "Captain! THIRD sonar contact! And, MY GOD! Its HUGE!"
The captian jumps back to the periscope. He scans left
The crew hears the panic in his voice and is visibly unsetteled by it. The captian realizes his error - "I'm the captian" he thinks... "It's my responsibility to keep the crew calm". He takes a deep dreath and recites the submariner's motto: "Run silent. Run deep." The crew appears visibly calmed as they echo the captain - "Run silent. Run deep."
The USPO submarine FAQ returns to the ocean depths and lives to hunt another day.
-
Re:patents (Score:2)
--Blair
persecution complex, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the editors edited instead of simply relaying common memes, maybe this problem would go away. At least a little bit.
Re:persecution complex, anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:persecution complex, anyone? (Score:1)
=)
What is the world coming to... (Score:4, Funny)
If it's copywritable? (Score:2, Funny)
FAQ held for liable (Score:1)
'How can I best leverage Microsofts licensing scheme to send my soul to heven' etc... shouldn't make the FAQ list.
What about the Internet? (Score:1)
Here are the two FAQ's. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what the hell Mist-On was thinking except for trying to eliminate competition. These FAQ's are hardly anything alike.
http://www.mist-on.com/faq.htm [mist-on.com]
http://www.gilleystanspa.com/content/sunless.htm#
Re:Here are the two FAQ's. (Score:2)
-The idea and Q&A format of an FAQ is not copyrightable (not original, idea, etc...)
-It is unlikely that any particular question statement of a "Frequently Asked Question" is original to the authors of the FAQ anyway
-The idea and facts embodied in an answer are also not copyrightable
On the other hand, some elements of a particular FAQ probably are copyrightable:
- The exact choice and order of the questions might be copyrightable in some cases if it truly was the result of some creative selection process by the author. On the other hand, if it is just a record of the order of questions asked by others in a particular forum, it wouldn't qualify. Here, the select and order of questions vary between the two FAQ's, so this isn't an issue.
- The exact expression of the answers, especially when treated as a group. This is clearly original work of the author(s) of the FAQ. Here, the exact expression was not copied, so this isn't an issue.
Intepretation of court ruling ... (Score:4, Informative)
FAQs are a common industry custom, and much like man-pages follow a certain format, is based on expectations of that that information is intended to achieve. After all, similar intentions for a well-defined domain usually result in similar solutions. In this case attempting to use one legal concept (exclusive right to duplicate original copy) to achieve anti-competitive outcomes was rejected. There res decidendi (or question in conflict) was not relevant to copyright.
I hope some of the principles from this case can be moved over to the software patent domain. The reversal of historical application of patents as defensive shield towards modern offensive tactics (business process patent), is creating outcomes contrary to the original intent. When companies prepared to use new technology are esstoped from deployment by pure IP hurdles (cough*RamBus*cough) or other nuisance patents (cough*oneClick*cough), then perhaps it is worthwhile reconsidering redefining the bar to innovation.
Perhaps OpenSource could then be described as a defensive legal tactic
LL
Re:Intepretation of court ruling ... (Score:2)
You could try to copyright a data structure that uses a question/answer format... but the thing is, how can you provie I copied yours? Many many other poeple came up with the same format independently.
REmember, if you come up with an exact replica of a copyrighted work independently, it's not infringement (as with clean-room reverse engineering techniques for software. Even if the resulting code is identical to the original, it's not infringement, becuase it was not copied)
I find it interesting that so many people manage to tie any topic back to open source somehow. The only other groups I can see who do this sort of thing are a) politicos, who try to show how any disucssion is right wing/left wing / liberal/ conservative/ etc. and
b) religious freaks, who try to show how everything has to do with Jesus or Satan.
Let's get this straight. (Score:1)
The question "Can an FAQ be copyrightable?" is just completely meaningless and wrong.
It's like asking "Can I transfer my car from my home to the mall over HTTP?"
Sweat of the brow (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feis
Re:Sweat of the brow (Score:1)
A FAQ is similar; "writing" one consists of copy and paste, and by that ruling can't be considered an original work.
I guess some Usenet FAQs work this way, where answers consist of someone else's post, but most FAQs on corporate sites have questions and answers that are carefully written and original. I know--I've written a few.
Judge for yourself (Score:3, Informative)
And find here the alleged copy, Gilley's FAQ on google [google.com].
What do you think? To me, the only thing they have in common is the question marks, and that's not copyright infrigement.
BFD (Score:1)
C'mon, is this a slashdot topic? (Score:2)
Coming up next: Boy Falls in Lake, Climbs Out Wet.
um...FAQ's ARE copyrightable... (Score:2, Informative)
From the article: "...the facts and ideas it exposes are free for the taking."
So if you right a FAQ about something general like 10 FAQ's about tanning, then of course the content isn't copyright protected, unless of course, you have unique information about some factor of tanning.
That's not to say that if your FAQ's are about a specific application or process that you've developed (which a lot of FAQ's are built to answer) that your FAQ would not be copyright protected.
The headline Are FAQs copywritable? is totally dependant upon the content of the FAQ, not the fact that it is an FAQ.
Re:um...FAQ's ARE copyrightable... (Score:1)
Not true. General/unique, it doesn't matter what the content is. Anything that isn't an exact copy of a previous combination of words and layout is copyright protected. Even if there are no new ideas
A little trick (Score:1)
cat > nocopy.sed
1i\
FAQ:
And then cat whatever | sed -f nocopy.sed
© pellemell [pellemell.nu] 2002 All rights reserved
Damn secondary sources (Score:2)
"Are FAQs copywritable?" (Score:2)
Seriously, a copywriter [dictionary.com] and a copyrighter [dictionary.com] have two completely different jobs.
Can you write copy for a FAQ? I suppose. Can you copyright a FAQ? I haven't the foggiest.
Bitch and moan all you want, this isn't little grammar issue I'm pointing out. A misused word, in this case, completely changes the meaning of the question.
At least the editors got this one right in the title.
Thanks (Score:2)
The REAL cause for alarm.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The REAL cause for alarm.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow, sure are smart.
Re:The REAL cause for alarm.. (Score:1)
Who owns the copywrite? (Score:1)
I like Slashdot's policy of "Copywrite 2002, comments are property of their posters"
i dont see. (Score:1)
even if a survey or data gathering process is used to find the FAQs. Plenty of other companys have copyrights on there graphs and data which was gathered via survey or stats.
Its just why to would one want to copyright FAQs?
Here is what Mist -On is all about... (Score:1)
Please edit better. (Score:2)
The Judge decided that the 2 faq's in question were NOT copies, that they were only similar (both being faqs on the same obscure subject)
You most certainly CAN exert copyright if someone copies your work verbatim, whether it's an faq or not.
No... (Score:1)
procedures and facts (Score:2, Informative)
Re:procedures and facts (Score:2)
FAQ's are able to be copyrighted (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, if an ISP has a one article in a FAQ like:
What are "WinModems" and/or software dependent modems?
These are modems that leave some or most of the work needed in modulating or demodulating (translating and talking to the Internet) to the processor rather than completing all the work themselves. For various reasons, we do not recommend these modems...
Now, if some other ISP were to use it word for word, they would be violating copyright, but if they had the following (or any variation) it would be very difficult to claim it against the copyright:
What are Win and software modems?
Modems that leave much of the work of talking to the Internet (MODulating and DEModulating) to your processor rather than completing the function themselves are often referred to as WinModems (a category of software modems). For various reasons, we recommend using a real or hardware modem...
The similarities may appear blindingly but remember the conditions, same subject, same type of company. And remember, there's a reasion they're called Frequently Asked Questions.
In general, just about anything is able to have a copyright attached to it. There are conditions that will collapse a copyright if challenged in court however, like a commonly used phrase, insufficient to make something unique or a pre-existing work. Take twenty bucks to the copyright office and copyright your name, even John Smith will get through, but if you challenge someone or they challenge you, then it may be abolished (and you don't get your gas money back). This is what makes copyrights different from trademarks and patents; trademarks and patents have to be researched first, and naturally, cost more money.
<insert one-click patent jokes here>
Re:Lame site. (Score:1)