This is a collection of facts, and I claim no copyright on it
These guys actually have less of a leg to stand on then Fred Worth did while suing Parker Brothers over the game Trivial Pursuit. Fred alleged that Selchow & Righter Company copied many of it's facts from his books "The Trivia Encyclopedia," "Super Trivia," and "Super Trivia II." Selchow & Righter Company countered that these where just collections of facts, and therefor the facts contained therein are copyrightable. To quote the opinion of the court:
"Factual works receive distinct treatment from fictional works under copyright law. Landsberg, 736 F.2d at 488. Indeed, facts, like ideas, are never protected by copyright law. Cooling Sys., 777 F.2d at 491; see also 17 U.S.C. Sec. 102(b) (1982) (expressly excluding discoveries from the scope of copyright protection). Because authors who wish to express ideas in factual works are usually confined to a "narrow range of expression ..., similarity of expression may have to amount to verbatim reproduction or very close paraphrasing before a factual work will be deemed infringed." Landsberg, 736 F.2d at 488. Fictional works, in contrast, which may be expressed with "infinite variations," enjoy a broader protection; a verbatim copy or close paraphrase is not a necessary element to establish infringement. Id. Worth cannot prevail in his claim without showing that the Trivial Pursuit game cards derived from his expression "something more than what 'must unavoidably be produced by anyone who wishes to use and restate' the facts that form the greater part of the work." Cooling Sys., 777 F.2d at 492 (quoting Landsberg, 736 F.2d at 489).
It is clear, then, that the use of the factual content in Worth's books does not constitute infringement. "The discovery of a fact, regardless of the quantum of labor and expense, is simply not the work of an author." 1 M. Nimmer, supra, Sec. 2.11[E], at 2-169. The verbatim repetition of certain words in order to use the nonprotectible facts is also noninfringing; the game cards' repetition of words used by Worth to describe places, persons, and events constitutes "mere indispensable expression" of particular facts or ideas. See Frybarger, 812 F.2d at 530 (emphasis in original). If we were to hold otherwise, we would, in effect, extend copyright protection to the facts contained in Worth's books. See Landsberg, 736 F.2d at 489 (noting that because of the unavoidable expression required to restate the nonprotectible ideas in plaintiff's work, a finding of infringing similarity of expression would effectively grant a copyright in the work's nonprotectible ideas)."
furthermore, SCotUS ruled in Fiest v. Rural:
"While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole because it contains some forward text and some original material in the yellow pages, there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected, coordinated, and arranged those facts is not original in any way. Rural's selection of listings - subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers - could not be more obvious, and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression."
Expect both of these to come up in court, expect judgement to be quick, expect the appellate court to decline to review. (although I am not a lawyer, maybe you should see what the RESULT is before lambasting the courts for something they haven't yet ruled on).
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/827/569/3179/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_Pursuit#Fred_Worth_lawsuit