Man, I never thought a list of peaks would be intellectual property. I didn't intend to infer that I developed the list. I ran across it on climber.org and have started working to complete it. I thought it would be good info to share on SP. I thought lists like this were intended to be shared. If I had or could find the info for the authors I'd be happy to give credit where credit is due. I don't want to start a spat on SP, I'm just trying to contribute to make the site even better. Perhaps you could send me an email if you had the time and tell me the whole story. If it's that big of a deal I'd be glad to pull it. Just tryin' to share. JD
There is no organization left responsible for its origin... so then why should we care? Who is the "true author" that you talk about? Names? Phone numbers? I'll call them myself, and I don't even care about the list.
Why are you so passionate about this? It really doesn't make any sense. You are making this list sound like it's more than a guidebook or this website. It's not.
I assumed lists like these were meant to be shared. I wouldn't infer liability on the original authors of any list for anything that happened to me just as I wouldn't infer liability on this site for anything that happened while I was using info I gathered from SP. I guess I kind of see the point if you are offering emblems or patches or conferring status for achievements. Regardless, I'll gladly pull the info down because it seems to be very important to you, especially in regards to climber.org. Perhaps there is some way that this list can be available to the public that is suitable to the original contributors and authors. I'd welcome that and I think SP would be a great place for people to get the info on these mountains and enjoy going through this list again.
And that, as they say, is the rest of the story. Well, it's a shame that once again the suit happy crowd has made something that only exists for good reasons so hard to accomplish. I'm in the military and it's firmly established that if we get hurt doing something off duty that is considered hazardous we can't in turn sue the government for anything. I think it's called the "I told you so" clause. I sustained a life threatening injury snowboarding long ago and while my insurance paid for medical care I can't claim disability from the government or sue the ski resort because "they told me so". The same concept should apply to any information about such activities gained from the web. A simple disclaimer should be enough. I understand the whole "club" point of view though. If they have dues, bylaws, regulations and insurance then they have a responsibility to thier members. I did notice several instances on climber.org were data was incorrect or missing. On most of them I found correct general info myself through USGS. I agree that anyone posting info should make every effort to insure it's accurate and up to date. Well, enough said about all this. If there is ever a breakthrough on the ability to publisize this list in full on a site like SP then I would be more then happy to volunteer my time to compile info and publish web sites. I don't have a domain I can offer up but I can put a site together and FTP it anywhere. Until then I'll keep working on climbing my own private version of this list in my little corner of California and hold only myself and Murphy accountable for anything that happens to me. Best of luck with your efforts.
Sorry Pete, but I do not agree with your stance or your take on copyright law. A list of peaks is *not* copyrightable. It is simply a list of places. While there may be creativity in coming up with the list, there is *no* creativity in the writing of the list. I could make a list of my favorite Starbucks in California, but it is not covered by copyright law. I would be happy to publish the OGUL list in its entirety and invite anyone to sue me. I think there is far too much fear of lawsuits out there and this is a case of taking that fear too far.
In a similar fashion, your route descriptions *are* copyrightable, because they have creative use of words to describe the places and routes. The facts involved with the routes (their difficulty, mileage, elevation gain) or *not* copyrightable.
Pete, you are disgrace to SP. Get off your high horse. you don't even know the difference between a patent and a copyright and you're in here trying to lecture people about theft of a fricken LIST? are you kidding?
Put the list back up. No one is gonna sue anyone, and if they do, I'll represent you for no fee and vee vill krash zem!!!
#1 on the list has to be the 24hr one located in Manteca at the junction of US99 & SR120. You get your caffeine fix in the wee hours on the way to Yosemite or the Eastern Sierra. How cool is that?
If the information is objective then it cannot be copyrighted. Anyone could create a list with the same ordering, numbers, etc. (such as Top 100 lists).
If the list is subjective then it can be copyrighted. This would be list for things like "My favorite California Starbucks Cafes" because it is implied that there were artistic liberties taken in creation of such a list. But who would want to reproduce someone else's blog-like list like that anyway?
Basically, you can't copyright a list of facts. You can copyright the presentation of the list on a webpage but not the list itself.
davis13 - Feb 17, 2006 6:12 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Intellectual PropertyMan, I never thought a list of peaks would be intellectual property. I didn't intend to infer that I developed the list. I ran across it on climber.org and have started working to complete it. I thought it would be good info to share on SP. I thought lists like this were intended to be shared. If I had or could find the info for the authors I'd be happy to give credit where credit is due. I don't want to start a spat on SP, I'm just trying to contribute to make the site even better. Perhaps you could send me an email if you had the time and tell me the whole story. If it's that big of a deal I'd be glad to pull it. Just tryin' to share. JD
brendon - Feb 24, 2006 5:18 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Intellectual PropertyThere is no organization left responsible for its origin... so then why should we care? Who is the "true author" that you talk about? Names? Phone numbers? I'll call them myself, and I don't even care about the list.
Why are you so passionate about this? It really doesn't make any sense. You are making this list sound like it's more than a guidebook or this website. It's not.
I say put it back!
davis13 - Feb 17, 2006 4:56 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Original WorkI assumed lists like these were meant to be shared. I wouldn't infer liability on the original authors of any list for anything that happened to me just as I wouldn't infer liability on this site for anything that happened while I was using info I gathered from SP. I guess I kind of see the point if you are offering emblems or patches or conferring status for achievements. Regardless, I'll gladly pull the info down because it seems to be very important to you, especially in regards to climber.org. Perhaps there is some way that this list can be available to the public that is suitable to the original contributors and authors. I'd welcome that and I think SP would be a great place for people to get the info on these mountains and enjoy going through this list again.
davis13 - Feb 18, 2006 2:53 am - Hasn't voted
Re: SharingAnd that, as they say, is the rest of the story. Well, it's a shame that once again the suit happy crowd has made something that only exists for good reasons so hard to accomplish. I'm in the military and it's firmly established that if we get hurt doing something off duty that is considered hazardous we can't in turn sue the government for anything. I think it's called the "I told you so" clause. I sustained a life threatening injury snowboarding long ago and while my insurance paid for medical care I can't claim disability from the government or sue the ski resort because "they told me so". The same concept should apply to any information about such activities gained from the web. A simple disclaimer should be enough. I understand the whole "club" point of view though. If they have dues, bylaws, regulations and insurance then they have a responsibility to thier members. I did notice several instances on climber.org were data was incorrect or missing. On most of them I found correct general info myself through USGS. I agree that anyone posting info should make every effort to insure it's accurate and up to date. Well, enough said about all this. If there is ever a breakthrough on the ability to publisize this list in full on a site like SP then I would be more then happy to volunteer my time to compile info and publish web sites. I don't have a domain I can offer up but I can put a site together and FTP it anywhere. Until then I'll keep working on climbing my own private version of this list in my little corner of California and hold only myself and Murphy accountable for anything that happens to me. Best of luck with your efforts.
Bob Burd - Feb 21, 2006 1:58 am - Voted 5/10
Respectfully disagreeSorry Pete, but I do not agree with your stance or your take on copyright law. A list of peaks is *not* copyrightable. It is simply a list of places. While there may be creativity in coming up with the list, there is *no* creativity in the writing of the list. I could make a list of my favorite Starbucks in California, but it is not covered by copyright law. I would be happy to publish the OGUL list in its entirety and invite anyone to sue me. I think there is far too much fear of lawsuits out there and this is a case of taking that fear too far.
In a similar fashion, your route descriptions *are* copyrightable, because they have creative use of words to describe the places and routes. The facts involved with the routes (their difficulty, mileage, elevation gain) or *not* copyrightable.
steeleman - Feb 23, 2006 6:24 pm - Hasn't voted
UR A LoserPete, you are disgrace to SP. Get off your high horse. you don't even know the difference between a patent and a copyright and you're in here trying to lecture people about theft of a fricken LIST? are you kidding?
Put the list back up. No one is gonna sue anyone, and if they do, I'll represent you for no fee and vee vill krash zem!!!
Matthew Holliman - Feb 23, 2006 7:06 pm - Hasn't voted
Useful listBob, please post your list of favourite California Starbucks. It would be far more useful than some of the dreck that's posted on here now.
Bob Burd - Feb 27, 2006 6:19 am - Voted 5/10
Re: Useful list#1 on the list has to be the 24hr one located in Manteca at the junction of US99 & SR120. You get your caffeine fix in the wee hours on the way to Yosemite or the Eastern Sierra. How cool is that?
Felsberg - Feb 23, 2006 8:21 pm - Hasn't voted
bring back the list!this is really dumb.
Misha - Feb 24, 2006 1:02 am - Hasn't voted
dohbring back the list and use volunteered steeleman's legal service if required. he is da man!!!
Klenke - Feb 24, 2006 3:44 am - Hasn't voted
You can't copyright a factIf the information is objective then it cannot be copyrighted. Anyone could create a list with the same ordering, numbers, etc. (such as Top 100 lists).
If the list is subjective then it can be copyrighted. This would be list for things like "My favorite California Starbucks Cafes" because it is implied that there were artistic liberties taken in creation of such a list. But who would want to reproduce someone else's blog-like list like that anyway?
Basically, you can't copyright a list of facts. You can copyright the presentation of the list on a webpage but not the list itself.