In another forum, there has been a fascinating discussion on copyright, originating from the notice posted on http://clans.cla.co.uk/www/auths.html about what one can or cannot legally do. Out of this, I posted a query of the following type; "A chemist might wish to create a display containing a rotating water molecule. The source "code" (I think its not the correct term to use) is in fact almost pure data, which cannot be copyrighted (ie the datum that the angle between the three atoms in water is 111 degrees is not copyrightable). This is converted "just-in-time" to a nice molecule by the browser, and that action is initated by the user. I think we must be agreed that the very sophisticated effect produced on the screen is entirely and without ambiguity not copyrightable by the original author. Taking it one stage further. Suppose the author decides that the oxygen atom must be displayed differently for whatever scientific reason, and writes a script for doing so. In textual terms this is equivalent to say italicising a word. Is that copyrightable? I think not. Take the next stage. The author choreographs a number of visual effects using scripts, and as a result imparts some conceptual understanding to the chemistry of water that was not there before. The IPR clearly resides with the author. But can the visual effects be copyrighted?" Edward Barrow of the CLA (Copyright Licensing Agency) posted the following reply (representing his view, rather than necessarily that of the CLA) "The screen display of a program which takes structural, chemical or crystallographic data to display representations of a molecule is a computer-generated copyright work, as is any subsequent printout. The copyright belongs first to the operator of the machine. Copyright does not subsist in the underlying factual data.The copyright is infringed by a person who copies the display but not by someone who uses the same program and the same data to produce an identical display; it is thus practically worthless but it does not alter the fact that it subsists. Copyright may subsist in the underlying data (for example a set of results derived from a crystallographic experiment). This copyright would be infringed by copying the data, but not by carrying out the same experiment with the same sample to produce identical data. The position on compilations of data is complicated and the law in the UK is at odds with the rest of the world until at least 1/1/98 by which time the EU's Database Directive is supposed to be implemented." I think this concept that it is possible for a copyright to belong first to the operator of a computer, rather than the person who collected data to enable such a display, to be a fascinating one. Actually, it in reality means that copyright in this sense has no worthwhile meaning! The other interesting point is the distinction between data, and a compilation of data (presumably the minimal amount is two data sets?). In the previous example, an author inserting 3D coordinate data into a web page does not own the copyright to the molecule display on that page, but if he/she had inserted say two molecules into that page, then this dataset of two molecules might indeed be copyrightable by them. At the risk of unleashing a deluge, any comments are welcome! Dr Henry Rzepa, Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, LONDON SW7 2AY; rzepa@ic.ac.uk; Tel (44) 171 594 5774; Fax: (44) 171 594 5804. URL: http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/ chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@ic.ac.uk)