> I wonder whether "fake facts" (bogus names, numbers, addresses) are copyrightable.
This has, unfortunately, been upheld on occasion. True damages from copying such false entries would be nonexistent, naturally, but statutory damages are blind to such trivialities as justice or proportionality.
Morally speaking, anything presented as fact (including entries in a phone book or notations on a map) should be treated as fact and thus not copyrightable. Something along the lines of estoppel should prevent one from claiming that they are providing a database of facts and then suing the recipient for reproducing copyrightable "creative elements" which don't belong there. Also, selling someone a database of "facts" with deliberate fictitious entries mixed in which are not specifically labeled as such should be classified as fraud and open the publisher up to liability should anyone suffer the slightest harm due to the false entries.
This has, unfortunately, been upheld on occasion. True damages from copying such false entries would be nonexistent, naturally, but statutory damages are blind to such trivialities as justice or proportionality.
Morally speaking, anything presented as fact (including entries in a phone book or notations on a map) should be treated as fact and thus not copyrightable. Something along the lines of estoppel should prevent one from claiming that they are providing a database of facts and then suing the recipient for reproducing copyrightable "creative elements" which don't belong there. Also, selling someone a database of "facts" with deliberate fictitious entries mixed in which are not specifically labeled as such should be classified as fraud and open the publisher up to liability should anyone suffer the slightest harm due to the false entries.