I want to add a database of baby names to my current baby-product
related website.  I've scoped out the competitors and found that a lot
of them have the same or similar names, meanings, and origins.  None
of them have the exact same set of names.  

I need to find out where to get an extensive list of names, meanings, and
origins that I can freely use on a commercial site without steeling
anyone's copyrighted information.  It's okay if it comes from multiple
sources.  These other websites have done it and don't seem to credit
any sources,
so I know the information must be out there.  I've already found the
government resource that lists the most popular names by year, but it
doesn't list meanings and origins.  I'm stumped.

dlh2004,
An excellent site that meets your criteria is here:
http://www.behindthename.com/

I believe your fears about copyright infringement are unfounded
primarily because names are similar to words, in that they are a part
of our common culture (ever hear of a dictionary company suing
someone?) Secondly the vast majority of names are from past ages and
just like a book from the 19th century, copyright has expired. Lastly
if still in doubt look at the webmasters references
(http://www.behindthename.com/references.html) and note that he has
sourced the names from recent and past books (etc). Has he been sued?
I think not.
P.S. Reference books may be available through your library.

Kind regards and don?t worry,
gfmaster 
Copyright 2004
(only kidding)

That's a good point.  You're probably right about the names being too
common for a copyright.  What I'm really worried about are the
meanings.  They are often 1 to 3 words and are sometimes phrased
differently in each source.

I like your idea of using library resources to find old baby name
books that may have expired copyrights.  However, I think it's
unlikely to find really old books.  If a book was copyrighted in 1887
and then reprinted in 1997, would the copyright be renewed?

A thought:

You cannot safely assume that simply because a name or word is common
that it is not subject to copyright protection.  Assume that you find
a database on the web somewhere that contains 1,000 baby names,
meanings and origins, and because the names are all common (e.g.,
Matthew, John, Steve), and because the definitions and meanings are
all fairly short in length or are taken from a very old public domain
source, you conclude that you can simply copy and import the data into
your site.  Now while it is true that under current copyright law most
databases are merely compilations of raw data and raw data is not
protectible in copyright, the trick is determining
whether the underlying database really is nothing more than an
assemblage of raw data (common names, short public domain definitions
and meanings) or if the authors have imbued it with enough creativity
and originality in the selection, arrangement and presentation of that
data so as to make those aspects of it
copyrightable.  See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone
Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=499&page=340).
See also Mywebgrocer v. Hometown Info, (2d Cir. 2004, No. 03-7909,
July 13, 2004) (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/037909p.pdf)
(holding that even an otherwise uncopyrightable assemblage of facts
may merit copyright protection if evidence suggests some creativity
was employed in the selection, order or arrangement of the otherwise
unprotectible facts.)

So, before you copy someone else's name data, please make sure under
the Feist case that the data is not subject to copyright protection. 
Indeed, imagine what the publishers of the Merriam Webster dictionary
would do if I simply photocopied their dictionary and sold it under my
own name.  Do you think they couldn't sue me?  Sure they could,
because they spent a lot of time and money preparing the definitions,
arranging the data, editing the text, etc., and a lot of creativity
when into it as well.

As to your question about a book first published in 1887: if it was
reprinted verbatim without the addition of any new material in 1997,
the work would still be in the public domain, yes.

I guess I need to hit the local library and find some pre-world war
one name dictionaries.  Any ideas on some specific pre-world war one
name dictionary titles (edditions)?  I already checked out the
gutenberg site.  No luck there.

dlh2004,
The caution expressed by ?ipfan? is respected as is your ultimate
decision regarding the sourcing of the names.
In good conscious I would find it repugnant to publish anothers works
under my own name. Its simply the case that I firmly believe the
referance website is not another persons work, in the same sense that
the entries in ?Merriam Webster? dictionary (or any other of that ilk)
arn?t. They are collections of facts expressed in a logical manner,
available for all. The collectors of the material have worked hard to
compile it into its form and may feel a sense of ownership because of
that effort (expressed erounously by claiming copyright). But what is
its originality? They have sourced the material from somewhere, as it
only has validity as fact if others can relate to it. So for copyright
protection we come down to the expression of the fact. How many ways
can we say a name comes from ?Japan? and means ?wind chime?? If we
purposely add an ?s? to chime, is it now owned by the collector?
Perhaps yes, but wouldn?t it be equally true that the collector, by
altering the base meaning of a name (so copyright can be claimed) has
stepped over an invisible line into the area of publishing fiction?
What reliance on their work can be then be claimed?
Enough metaphysics!
dlh2004 if you intend to source the names from older material perhaps
you may care printing the reference page
(http://www.behindthename.com/references.html) and asking your local
librarian to obtain the noted books. From these, the bibliographies
can be consulted and the process repeated.

Kind regards,
gfmaster

Gfmaster has well articulated what is known in copyright law as the
"idea-expression merger doctrine."  Where there is only one way to
express an idea, the expression of that idea is not subject to
copyright protection.  So indeed, if there is only one spelling,
meaning and origin of a certain name, the physical expression of those
facts into a tangible medium is not protectible in copyright.  But my
point was that an assemblage of otherwise unprotectible facts ~may~ be
protected in copyright under the theories expressed in the Feist and
MyWebGrocer cases, i.e., even an otherwise uncopyrightable assemblage
of facts may merit copyright protection if evidence suggests some
creativity was employed in the selection, order or arrangement of the
otherwise
unprotectible facts.  So, with all due respect to gfmaster, the
creators of such an assemblage are not "erroneously" claiming
copyright.  The law is well settled that the creative components of
any assemblage of otherwise unprotectible facts, e.g., items subject
to idea-expression merger, are still protectible in copyright.

Indeed, consider gfmaster's hypothetical--if I did take a name, origin
and defintion from another site and was convinced that just those
elements alone were not protectible under idea-expression merger and
then I added my own fictional account of the origin of the name (say I
wrote a short paragraph completely of my own invention describing how
the name came about and its meaning), my new paragraph would be
subject to copyright protection by me, even if the underlying base
elements upon which my fictional paragraph was based are not.

Thanks,
ipfan

ipfan,
I have read your references and certainly concede the point you are
making (where is the line drawn in the sand?). However the only
purpose of this forum is to assist our fellows, in reaching specific
goals and the introduction of admittedly related but possibly
irrelevant material only frustrates that end.

Be aware that each and every answer/comment generates an email to
?dlh2004? who may now be firmly of the opinion that using the
suggested website infringes on copyright, when it more than likely
doesn?t. Can I be certain of this? No it is impossible to be certain
of anything. The questioner is at an unknown domicile with laws
specific to that location, their applicability complicated further by
the medium of intended usage, the Internet.

Given that your cautionary point has been made and accepted can you
please offer to dlh2004 comments pertinent the original question?

Kind regards,
gfmaster

gfmaster:

Point taken, thanks.  I do not have any public domain baby name
sources to recommend, although I did look.

Thanks,
ipfan