Legal Question in Business Law in California

Re: Copyright: Re Price Guides

You seem to be treading in a borderline area which has been the subject of quite a lot of litigation. In responding to you, I will give you some general principles but I can't comprehensively answer your question without more information. Since you are in a borderline area, personalized legal advice based upon an interview developing all the background facts is needed.

First, copyright protection extends only to an author's expression of facts and not to the facts themselves. This is because a fact does not originate with the author of the work describing the fact.

For example, it has been held not to be a copyright violation to publish names and phone numbers in a directory competing with the "official" phone company version. Similarly, it seems to be legal to publish compilations of critical reviews of sound recordings and wine, so long as the compiler only says "Wine Spectator liked the Lancers" and not "WS rating 88, clean, crisp, full-bodied." The former is a fact and the latter is original expression (probably, at least).

There are cases involving books projecting values for used cars. They seem to hold that mere reporting of historical prices, or mechanical projections of historical prices, is not copyrightable, but predictions of future prices reflecting some judgment, some creativity, by the authors renders the information subject to copyright protection. You might want to look up the 1994 case in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, "CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports" at 44 F.3d 61. Your local law librarian (at the courthouse, probably) can assist you, or perhaps you can find it on the Internet.

In sum, the type of material you are discussing is more likely than not NOT copyrightable, but there is a sufficient possibility that it is that you need to be careful.

Publishing someone else's copyrighted material on the Internet differs very little from classic infringement such as reprinting or photocopying in legal consequences. The unique issues might be where the harm takes place and how to measure the extent of the harm.

Additionally, a possibility exists that the facts in question are otherwise protected, possibly as trade secrets. This would depend upon whether the results of the research are restricted as to distribution, either by keeping them confidential or by licensing users with access.

I hope this is somewhat helpful even if not totally decisive.

Finally, mentioning the source of republished information has little or nothing to do with whether the information is protected. Crediting the source is usually a requirement imposed by the holder of a valid copyright upon a licensee, to prevent further dissemination and possible loss of the copyright protection. Giving credit to the source is not a defense to a suit for infringement; indeed, it is probably evidence that the infringer was aware of the illegality of his actions.