I was asked to post a private exchange with regard to the following statement: > > Can You Copyright Your Data? by Dick Eastman > > .... > > "For instance, if the original records of a town are difficult > > to read because of faded ink or poor penmanship, an expert > > historian with proper experience may be able to decode the > > information properly and then publish that interpretation of > > the original records. The interpretation involved constitutes > > originality and therefore may be copyrighted." On Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:56 PM, Cliff Lamere <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope that this is incorrect. If the person interpteting the > handwriting ends up with data, they are presenting it as > factual. If they have done a really good job, it will be > entirely factual. How can their interpretation be > copyrightable? Isn't a person's interpretation just part of > the "sweat of the brow" that the US Supreme Court (1991) said > was not protected by copyright? > > I don't see anything original in interpreting something to be > what was actually written. If so, just interpreting bad > microfilms or photocopies could be claimed as a reason for > copyright of facts. I agree with you. I was being partially facetious when I said "which may verge on a completely original work of authorship :-)." To the extent it is a factual presentation of data, it is not copyrightable; to the extent it is a presentation of conclusions drawn in a scholarly fashion, it is copyrightable. Scott