Thought this would be of interest in view of our recent discussion. In other words, facts are facts and don't belong to anyone. Sara "copyright law does not prohibit the copying of facts, even newly discovered or expensively acquired facts, nor does it prohibit the copying of ideas. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 556, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d. 588 (1985); Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700, 703-10 (2nd Cir., 1991); Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954). Copyright law can only provide protection to the arrangement and coordination of facts in a database. Even then, there must be some originality to the collection and arrangement for it to be protected. See, e.g., 17 U.S.C.A. § 103 and cases cited therein. Typically the preparation of a database requires a significant expenditure of time, effort and money to cull and select information from many different sources, but little or no original creativity to express the facts, or arrange them. In these circumstances, where the compiler gathers and compiles raw facts, he did not create the facts, he just discovered or uncovered them, sometimes at great expense and trouble. ... To grant copyright protection based merely on the "sweat of the author's brow" would risk putting large areas of actual research material off limits and threaten the public's unrestrained access to information. ... A recent unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court has followed the Miller line of cases and sounded the death knell to Learned Hand's sweat of the brow doctrine. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d. 358 (1991)." for full text see http://seamless.com/rcl/article.html