True Historical Story - Derivative?

[JudithLightning]

Jurisdiction

New York

Here's a situation:

A longform article was published about 15 years ago, relaying the story of a historical music group from the 1920s (no living members). There's very little information about them beyond that article-- in fact, it's the only source for the Wikipedia article.

A play was written about the group. The facts of the historical situation have not changed for the most part (a slight slimming down of characters and a few invented situations). No direct quotes from the article are used, nor is the structure the same. The only similarity is that both the article and play focus on this historical group.

Facts can't be copyrighted, but if there's only one strong resource for the facts, is using those facts considered infringement?

 

[adjusterjack]

Facts can't be copyrighted,

Seriously?

Go to the library and pick up any history book that's crammed full of facts from cover to cover and, guess what, it's COPYRIGHTED.

So, yes, it's infringement.

If you want to do your own independent research about this group and write a book, go for it.

 

[army judge]

Here's a situation:



Facts can't be copyrighted, but if there's only one strong resource for the facts, is using those facts considered infringement?

You're correct, facts can't hold a copyright.

To create work eligible for a copyright three elements are required: (1) fixation, (2) originality, and (3) expression.


Read more below:



https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/01/08/5-things-that-cant-be-copyrighted/



II. What can and can't be copyrighted? | New Media Rights


Generally, recounting facts doesn't violate any copyright protections, even if the facts can only be found from one source.

However, before you proceed, I suggest you obtain a written legal opinion from a copyright lawyer.

Such a written opinion will be worth far more than the five hundred bucks you spend to obtain it, IF you're ever sued.

 

[adjusterjack]

I'm having a problem with "facts can't be copyrighted."

Take this fact, for example:

"American Flying Fortresses dropped bombs on Berlin in daylight for the first time on March 4, 1944."

That's a fact, right?

Yet it's a direct quote from Volume III of the Pictorial History of the Second World War, Copyright 1944, 1946 Wm H Wise & Co, Inc.

So, when does a compilation of facts become an infringement on somebody else's compilation of facts?

 

[army judge]

I'm having a problem with "facts can't be copyrighted."

Take this fact, for example:

"American Flying Fortresses dropped bombs on Berlin in daylight for the first time on March 4, 1944."

That's a fact, right?

Yet it's a direct quote from Volume III of the Pictorial History of the Second World War, Copyright 1944, 1946 Wm H Wise & Co, Inc.

So, when does a compilation of facts become an infringement on somebody else's compilation of facts?

Lincoln was assassinated by Booth.

Nixon resigned the presidency.

It snowed on December 4th.

2 + 2 = 4

There aren't that many ways (or words one can use) to tell the truth.

Facts are the truth.

On a different note, the law isn't a precise science.

Laws are simply compilations of opinions given legal significance by elected leaders, or despots, or some supreme, sacrosanct body.

You're approaching it from a far too scientific perspective.

Not to worry, my friend, your struggle is the same as many 1Ls and some 2Ls.

If you make it to 3L, and want that JD, you simply regurgitate and pretend to believe.

Truthfully, my friend, the law is very often "smoke and mirrors", or what some call, an entertaining and believeable dog and pony show.

How else has Obama gotten away with things the constitution seems to say are contradictory?

Why,The Supremes, of course.

The Supremes are The Three Wise Men squared.

The Supremes say its law, so the illegal can be cleansed with their holy blessing.

The jury, that's the one last bastion of sanity in all of this madness.

Yet, one need only look back 50 years to observe how ALL white juries cleansed the evils perpetrated on blacks all across the Deep South.

To be fair, let's not forget cities like Milwaukee, Cicero, Il, and the juries north of the Mason-Dixon Line, too.

 

[adjusterjack]

How else has Obama gotten away with things the constitution seems to say are contradictory?

Why,The Supremes, of course.

The Supremes are The Three Wise Men squared.

The Supremes say its law, so the illegal can be cleansed with their holy blessing.

Then let's make sure we don't allow an Obama clone to occupy the White House this coming election.

(I know that's off topic, but you got me there. )

 

[army judge]

LOL, laws were designed to confuse.