> Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can be.

... in the US.

In the EU and UK there is separate copyright-like legislation that covers this, so-called "database rights".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right

I'm not sure the data in question here would qualify as "facts" like a batting average or win percentage would. These are researched estimates. Different outlets would come up with different numbers depending on the researchers and techniques they employ. Ergo it requires a degree of skill and creativity.

But as you say, the point is moot. The collection itself should certainly be covered by copyright whether its contents are a mere collection of "facts" or not.

> Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can be.

It’s my understanding that this ceased to be true in the USA in 1991 and that a minimal degree of creativity is required [0]. Other countries have started following suit more recently.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....

IMO there's a huge difference between a list of names and numbers generated by a research team estimating someone's net worth, and a phone book.

One is a list of informed estimates, the other is a list of (essentially) facts.

Informed guesses are IMO essentially much longer pieces of creative content, just condensed into a number.

What you are saying about compilations makes sense, but was it a compilation in that sense? My interpretation was it was just a bunch of data spread over public pages on a website. It seems like if that constitutes a compilation, it would expand copyright by a lot