Copyright law is, for good or for ill, of increasing concern for academics in their work. One area
receiving particular attention is the copyright status of data and data representations.
The Copyright Act and relevant caselaw are clear on copyright protection for data: there is none.
Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act states that “In no case does copyright protection for an original
work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, orembodied in such work.1 This section of the statute has been strongly applied by the Supreme Court as
far back as 1880, where the Court ruled that accounting forms were not subject to copyright protection
in Baker v. Seldon.2 More recently, the Court reaffirmed this principle in Feist Publications, Inc., v.
Rural Telephone Service Co., where they ruled that a phonebook did not have enough creative
expression to merit protection; the mere fact that it took time and effort to acquire the names andnumbers for the book, or in the words of the Court, that it required “sweat of the brow” was not
sufficient for copyright protection.3
What, practically, does a case about accounting forms and a case about a phonebook have to do withscholarly publishing? As it turns out, quite a bit. Particularly in the sciences, scholarly works include
substantial amounts of tables, charts, and graphs, and many of these objects are of such explanatory
value that other scholars wish to cite them in their own writing.4 While there are ways that a scholar
can pay for a license to use such materials, they really don't need to go to the trouble, as charts, graphs,and tables are not the proper subject matter for copyright protection.5Let's unpack that last statement.
Charts, graphs, and tables are not subject to copyright protection because they do not meet the firstrequirement for copyright protection, that is, they are not “original works of authorship,” under thedefinitions in the Act.6 At first glance, this probably doesn't make much sense; if a researcher runs aseries of experiments and collects a data set, isn't that original, and aren't they the author of it? In asense, yes, but in the sense that's important for copyright, no. Facts and data aren't considered original
works of authorship because they are not “created” so much as they are “discovered.” For example, ifa scientist takes temperature readings at various locations over a period of years, she isn't “creating” thedata, she's recording the data. If she keeps a log describing how she feels every day, and how thesunrise looks at the testing station, that's original, creative, authorship. Recording natural phenomena
is not.
Furthermore, representations of data are also not protectable. Rereading section 102(b) with aparticular emphasis on the second half reveals this, as it reads: “In no case does copyright protection for
an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,illustrated, or embodied in such work.”7 Essentially, that means that a graph, chart, or table that
123456717 U.S.C. § 102(b).
101 U.S. 99 (1880).
499 U.S. 340 (1991) .
17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
17 U.S.C. § 102(b), emphasis added.

expresses data is treated the same as the underlying data. The courts have been clear as to the practical
implications of this statement and the broader principles that it informs. For example, they have ruledthat a digital schematic of an automobile was not sufficiently creative to merit copyright protection, 8that when certain topics are essential to expressing an idea they are not protectable,9 and that when
there are only a few possible ways to express an idea, they are not subject to copyright protection.10
According to this logic, the following charts, graphs, and tables are not protected by copyright:11

The above images are graphs, and the appearance of those graphs is dictated by the data which thegraphs represent. As such, they do not merit copyright protection. While the creators of the graphs did
have some creative control over they type of graph they chose, the colors they used to represent data,etc., those choices only served to represent the underlying data.

Similarly, the above representations of molecules, (propane and glucose, respectively), are also not
subject to copyright protection. A molecule exists in a predetermined state, and a representation of thisstate will be dictated by that underlying fact, and is therefore not subject to copyright protection.
That is not to say that just because something represents data it cannot be subject to copyright. The
following image is an infographic that illustrates immigration trends in the United States. While theimage does represent immigration data, there have been creative choices made the serve to do morethan to express that data. While certain elements of the image are not themselves subject to copyright,
taken as a whole, the image would receive protection.
8 Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008)
9 Atari, Inc. v. North American Phillips Consumer Electronics, 672 F.2d 607
10 Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967)
11 The following examples are taken from the Open.Michigan wiki, available at https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook,and other various sources.

Conclusion
Copyright is an important protection for authors, and a healthy respect for the law is vital for successful
scholarship. However, copyright is limited by Congress and the courts to a set of protectable
expression. Just because something took effort to create does not mean it is subject to copyrightprotection. Facts, data, and the representations of those facts and data are excellent examples of things
that require much “sweat of the brow” to create, but yet still do not receive copyright protection.
As a final note, it is important to state that even if something is subject to copyright law, it still may be
acceptable to make certain uses of it because of the statutory limitations to copyright. For example,“fair use” limits the exclusive rights that authors have in their copryrighted works and allows
individuals or institutions to make certain uses of those works without needing to seek permission. In
particular, academic, non-profit, and highly transformative uses (that is, uses which supersede theoriginal use of the work) are likely to be considered fair. For a more thorough discussion of fair use,
see...