> Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws. Nimmer ss 2.11[D], 3.03; Denicola 523, n. 38. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement.
Alphabetical order wasn't quite enough. But people directing the work that produces the coefficients are doing considerably more creative work than that.
> Thus: We are nowhere near the point where the output is under creative control rather than being the result of a poorly understood mechanical recipe.
No one requires complete creative control of the output. I can spatter paint and have relatively poor control of what's happening, but I am certainly generating a copyrightable work when I engage in creative choices as part of this.
> Alphabetical order wasn’t quite enough, But people directing the work that produces the coefficients are doing considerably more creative work than that.
I agree it’s more effort but the metric isn’t effort so I disagree that qualifies the coefficients as copyrightable. The SHA256 hash of a movie isn’t copyrightable even though the movie itself was.
> No one requires complete creative control
That’s a strawman, there are requirements for creative control. You don’t own copyright to your normal dumps, but you can get copyright from looking down and selecting to take a picture. That’s the low bar for a creativity requirement, but it exists.
> I agree it’s more effort but the metric isn’t effort so I disagree that qualifies the coefficients as copyrightable.
I know the metric is no longer effort. But there's a lot of creative choices that I've mentioned that greatly affect the coefficients, even if we don't know what those creative choices are going to do to each film grain in the photograph or coefficient in the matrix.
> You don’t own copyright to your normal dumps
Yes, there's an explicit exemption in LOC's guidelines for things that are the direct output of natural processes.
If you have a lot of choices affecting output, then the output is subject to copyright. Indeed, the Supremes above said that factual contemplations can qualify if they involve a "minimal degree of creativity".
Here's what the supremes said in Feist V. Rural:
> Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws. Nimmer ss 2.11[D], 3.03; Denicola 523, n. 38. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement.
Alphabetical order wasn't quite enough. But people directing the work that produces the coefficients are doing considerably more creative work than that.
> Thus: We are nowhere near the point where the output is under creative control rather than being the result of a poorly understood mechanical recipe.
No one requires complete creative control of the output. I can spatter paint and have relatively poor control of what's happening, but I am certainly generating a copyrightable work when I engage in creative choices as part of this.