April 29, 2010 @ 13:04pm
Are dictionary definitions copyrightable? Do they fall under the umbrella of "fact" or even a "short phrase" that wouldn't be copyrightable? I suppose long and creative definitions, like something in "The Devil's Dictionary" by Bierce is copyrightable, but what about short definitions, like Gene, "The basic biological unit of heredity; a segment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) needed to contribute to a function." (from www.ehsc.orst.edu/outreach/glossary.html )
My thoughts are they are not, since the very nature of a dictionary is to capture the fact of something, and the pool of common knowledge about a word or a concept, but I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks.
April 29, 2010 @ 13:04pm
Hi, Wundercapo.
Briefly, there is a low threshold for copyright eligibility. Dictionary definitions are fixed in a tangible form and they are-at times arguably-original. If an idea simply cannot be expressed in another way, its expression is not copyrightable. For example, one cannot monopolize the rights to “DNA” or “deoxyribonucleic acid.” The situation grows increasingly grey as the definition approaches an original expression. Although definitions are commonly brief, they still may be original. It isn’t the concept that is copyrighted (i.e. the fact that DNA has a unique structure) but rather the way that concept is explained. Somebody somewhere thought about and wrote the definition of DNA you quoted above; the resulting phrase may be protected by copyright.
It would help to know why you are curious about this issue. (1) Are you planning to reproduce a dictionary definition? If so, your use *may* be a fair use. (2) Are you planning to write dictionary definitions?
Other opinions?
Best regards,
MFakouri
April 29, 2010 @ 13:04pm
I would agree that they are copyrightable. Consider the amount of work that goes into an Oxford English Dictionary definition, for example -- scouring sources for quotations using the word, researching its etymology, and so on. The definition of a word may be a fact, but the expression of that fact may involve considerable creative work. The larger question would be, as MFakouri points out, what you intend to do with the material. One interesting point to consider is whether a single definition counts as "a few words from a larger work" or "the heart of a work" -- should each definition be considered separately? I would say they should generally be considered as part of a larger work, but each fair use situation still needs to be judged individually. A truly creative OED entry, signed by the author as they often were, may be something you'll need permission for if you want to use the whole thing -- you may need to consider it as an entire work of its own.
April 29, 2010 @ 13:04pm
I just wanted to mention that the amount of work- scouring sources, research, etc- does not at all come into play in the determination of whether or not something is copyrightable in the US. Effort or work put into something ("sweat of the brow") does not confer protection.
I'd think that the exact expression is copyrightable, but it's a "thinner" protection than other works.
[quote=JanetCroft]I would agree that they are copyrightable. Consider the amount of work that goes into an Oxford English Dictionary definition, for example -- scouring sources for quotations using the word, researching its etymology, and so on. The definition of a word may be a fact, but the expression of that fact may involve considerable creative work. The larger question would be, as MFakouri points out, what you intend to do with the material. One interesting point to consider is whether a single definition counts as "a few words from a larger work" or "the heart of a work" -- should each definition be considered separately? I would say they should generally be considered as part of a larger work, but each fair use situation still needs to be judged individually. A truly creative OED entry, signed by the author as they often were, may be something you'll need permission for if you want to use the whole thing -- you may need to consider it as an entire work of its own.[/quote]
April 29, 2010 @ 13:04pm
hello.
i was actually wondering if definitions carried a copyright as well.
i'm working on a how to painting book. describing some of the tools and materials is difficult without simply restating the dictionary definition of the item. then i list the materials and tools in the back of my book in a guide or glossary for reference. i want to be sure that i am doing this the correct way. i feel silly asking- but do i need to list the websters dictionary as a source. i apologize if this sounds silly- but this is my first book.
thanks
jme
April 29, 2010 @ 13:04pm
jme, it's never a bad practice to properly cite every direct quote you use and provide a list of works cited. You may even want to use a couple of dictionaries so you can choose the best definition to quote. There are probably specialized art dictionaries that would give even better definitions than Websters.
April 29, 2010 @ 13:04pm
thank you. . . do you think i can use definitions directly from the dictionary if i cite them properly in the bibligraphy? or will i have to reword them? i do appreciate your feedback :-)
April 29, 2010 @ 13:04pm
Yes, you can quote directly if you enclose it in quote marks. And if you do reword an existing definition, you should still cite it in most cases.
The mechanics of how you do all this correctly can be found in various 'style manuals.' Here's a link to a simplified version of MLA Syle, which is the one I find easiest to use: http://www.docstyles.com/mlacrib.htm. See sections 3.4 for how to indicate a quote, section 4.1 for how to cite the quote in your text, and section 5 for how to prepare your works cited list. Your eventual publisher may prefer a different style from MLA -- there are many out there -- but if you follow MLA, you will have all the information right there and can easily rearrange it as your publisher requires.