Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Do you have a source for this? Cause I really have a hard time believing they've been able to copyright the use of roman numerals in conjunction with film actors and crew members. Cause that's all I'm talking about. I'm not even saying to use the same roman numerals, just roman numerals in general.

No, I don't have a specific source for this, but I do recognize that every page on IMDB is copyrighted and I know that you can't copyright data, only the way data is displayed or formatted.  I don't know why Ken chose to do it his way, but it makes sense to me that he doesn't want to risk infringing on an IMDB copyright.

Quote:
IMDb uses I to denote the currently active Harrison Ford, and II to denote the one who was active in the early 1900's. You're saying we couldn't use II for the currently active and I for the older guy?

It's more likely that IMDB uses Roman numerals based on the order in which a person is first entered into the database.  Harrison Ford I probably got the I designation because he was cataloged before data for the lesser-know Harrison Ford II was entered.  If IMDB numbered people based on whether they were currently active or not, how do you explain what happens when there are three or more people with the same name -- sometimes active concurrently?

Quote:
I would think as long as we have a different policy when assigning the numbers we'd be in the clear. Maybe chronological by earliest appearance, which indeed would give the older Harrison Ford a I instead of a II.

If it's a concern about violating the copyrighted naming scheme, it would probably be over the use of Roman numerals not over the order they are assigned.

Quote:
Note: I'm not advocating a switch. I'm just engaging in a purely academic discussion at this point.

As am I.

I'm certainly no expert on copyrights, either in general or as they relate to storage/useage of data.  All I know is what I've been told.  The fact that Ken did not choose to use any numbering scheme for same-named people lends credence to my suspicion that it was because of the copyright thing.  It's been discussed quite frequently in the past in these forums, too.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
It's more likely that IMDB uses Roman numerals based on the order in which a person is first entered into the database.  Harrison Ford I probably got the I designation because he was cataloged before data for the lesser-know Harrison Ford II was entered.  If IMDB numbered people based on whether they were currently active or not, how do you explain what happens when there are three or more people with the same name -- sometimes active concurrently?

I'm not trying to explain anything. I was just stating facts. What you're suggesting makes a lot of sense and how I've always assumed IMDb was doing it. Which is why I suggested the other method.

Seeing as how neither of us really know the truth behind this, I'm inclined to agree with Skip that "better safe than sorry" is probably the primary reason to stay away from anything resemling IMDb data. We're most likely already skirting the gray area simply because, like it or not, I'm sure there's a fair amount of IMDb originating data in our Db. So no need to rock the boat and attract further attention

KM

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
I do recognize that every page on IMDB is copyrighted and I know that you can't copyright data, only the way data is displayed or formatted.

Actually no, you can't copyright the way data is displayed. To protect how data is displayed you would have to use some other means, probably a patent. And that's a whole lot more complicated than copyrighting.

Not true...at least not true here.  Here you can copyright the look, layought, design, etc. of your webpage.  So, while IMDb can't copyright the data, they can copyright the way it is displayed on their site.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:

If it's a concern about violating the copyrighted naming scheme, it would probably be over the use of Roman numerals not over the order they are assigned.

There is ZERO possibility that the idea of enumerating several indenticaly named people is copyrighted.  No matter if it's roman numerals, standard base ten, binary, alphabetic or using Kreskin psychic symbols.  Creating a unique pimary key is a basic concept in any form of DB design and as such is not vulnerable to copyright or patent questions.

By all means Invelos needs to isolate itself from legal vulnerability.  But we're operating on planet Earth here.  All birth year does is add a new factor to the name in an attempt to create a unique key.  It has a drawback however in that it is not guaranteed to be unique.  A sequentially assigned number is not only foolproof in this regard, it's a standard practice.  No matter how it is represented.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Not true...at least not true here.  Here you can copyright the look, layought, design, etc. of your webpage.  So, while IMDb can't copyright the data, they can copyright the way it is displayed on their site.

Really? Well, I stand corrected then. My understanding was that copyright only covered intellectual content, not presentation. I'm pretty sure that over here it would fall under either patent or registered design.

It's doubtful if using roman numerals to distinguish persons with the same name would be unique enough to be offered any kind of legal protection, but that's another matter.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
How many times do i have to explain this.

None!

I haven't asked for your explanation. I never suggested that Ken should adopt IMDB's numbering style. I was merely making a general comment on how I saw the actual legal position regarding it.     

I agree with Paul on this...

Say I only have movies from one of the actors....then I finally get one that is the other actor with the same name... and it is a movie that is not already in the database... So I make him #2 not knowing any better... but there is more then 2.... and he should actually be #3.

Birthyears is far from perfect... and think there should be a better way of doing it... but just assigning a number (or letter) to the person don't seem like the way to me.

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
the problem with adding a simple number to the name is how you would choose which one to use on a profile when there is a choice.

Is it NUmber 1? Number 2?

The person attaching them would have to look at the films which they appeared in and decide from that which was correct.

Wheras a birth year gives something which is separate from the films.

So a Birth year should be much better than choosing a random number each time you find a duplicate.

I wasn't necessarily saying it was a GOOD idea... I was just making the point that the "threat of lawuit" argument against it is absurb and without merit. 

But even with birth year we have the same problem.  We need to look at the film in most cases to tell which is which.  It's easy if we have a movie from 2004 with a teenager named "John Doe" and there's a "John Doe (1865)" but it's not always apparent and we do have to resort to the film.

In terms of user interface I wouldn't expect that the user would enter a number.  There would need to be some form of "clone" button that would let create a new version of the actor, as well as a mechanism to pick the proper "clone" based on the films they were in.

There is no ideal solution to this problem unfortunately.  Rght now we have birth year and we're probably stuck with it.  It's not the route I would have gone, but it is what we have.