DOCSLIB.ORG

General Overview of Intellectual Property

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Overview of Intellectual Property Technology Advances and IPR UNIT 7 PROTECTION OF DATABASES Structure 7.1 Introduction Objective 7.2 Historical Background 7.3 Definition and Scope of Database Protection 7.4 Protection Mechanisms for Databases Limitations of Copyright Protection Need of Database Protection Law 7.5 Copyright Protection of Databases International Conventions and Agreements Regional Legislations 7.6 Sui-Generis Protection of Databases 7.7 National Legislations United States of America Australia China 7.8 Database Protection in India 7.9 Laws Governing Information Protection in India Information Technology Act 2000 Indian Copyright Act 7.10 Summary 7.11 Terminal Questions 7.12 Answers and Hints 7.1 INTRODUCTION The recent advances in biotechnology field have enabled scientists to carry out experiments on different life forms and they are even successful in mapping the DNA sequences of some of these forms. The technological and economic investments made in these kinds of experiments are very high and the investors are inclined to protect the results of these experiments. Many of these results are in the form of large databases. Other types of databases we encounter quite often are the directories, dictionaries, thesaurus, railway/airline schedules, weather reports etc. The geographical information in its many forms offers wide scope for creativity in data presentation. Such representation involves artistic expression on computer screens and in printouts, data models, and the integration of information, analysis of data, and the use of textual and tabular data. Due to the large demand for the databases and exorbitant costs involved in preparing them, there have been efforts towards protecting these databases as intellectual property rights. Many national laws have recognised databases as a subject matter of intellectual property rights and accorded them protection under copyright law or by sui-generis system. In the TRIPS Agreement also these provisions are made. In this Unit we will be discussing the evolution of database protection as intellectual property right and its present status. Objectives After studying this unit, you should be able to: • define Database; • describe the historical background of database protection; • explain the rationale behind database protection; • cite the short comings of copyright law in its application for databases; 38 Protection of Databases • discuss the database protections afforded by different countries like US, Australia, China and European Union; • explain the different laws available in India for database protection; and • list the salient features of Indian Information Technology Act, 2000. 7.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Feist Case, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in case of Feist Publishing, Inc. versus Rural Telephone Service Co. may be attributed to the beginning of the movement for data protection laws wherein inter alia it has been stated that mere collections of information could not be covered under copyright protection. Instead, “creativity in selection or arrangement” was required. Briefly, the Feist case embodied an issue “whether the copying the data of telephone book listings was an infringement of the copyright existed in the arrangement of that data?” The claim was that even though the data might otherwise fall outside of the protection of the copyright law, the arranger of that data was entitled to protection because of the time and energy expended in doing the arrangement, in this instance the telephone book listings. The Supreme Court said that the so-called sweat of the brow legal theory of The sweat of the brow protection was not a valid legal theory. The Court referred to the United States doctrine here refers to the efforts and investment made Copyright Act of 1976, section 102 (b), which states: by an entity towards compiling large data but In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship without showing originality extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, in creation. concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. This opened a debate on the protection of the data and the arrangement of that data as one of the hot issues. This ruling stirred the database community throughout the world as this altered the landscape of copyright protection of factual compilations. They also began assuming that the present theory of copyright does not favour the protection of databases. There may be other theories that may be useful to the creator of such materials such as trespass, unfair competition and contract rights. All these theories are limited in their scope and subject to the contractual relationship between the parties. This raised a need of a thoughtful and practical analysis of copyright laws vis-à-vis database protection. As far as different copyright laws prevailing to different nations are concerned, they broadly intend to cover the original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated. Consequently, the facts themselves do not come under purview of copyright protection; however, compilation of factual information can be protected by copyright laws if the selection, coordination, or arrangement of data constitutes an original work of authorship. Eventually, the facts in a factual compilation may be freely copied. The computerised databases which contain enormous amount of facts in the form of factual compilations are vulnerable to be copied in another database in a matter of no time using the prevailing data processing technologies. Such instances thus paved a smooth and soothing way for a second competing database without incurring the cost and labour of producing it. 39 Technology Advances and IPR 7.3 DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF DATABASE PROTECTION A database is a collection of data arranged in a systematic way to facilitate and efficient retrieval of information to its users. Database Management System (DBMS), which administers the database is a software or computer programme distinct to database. In this era of computerisation and perpetual development, there are large number of Database Management System (DBMS) packages available in the market which administer the databases. Conventionally, database was collected and recorded in a file and kept in hard copy form. Compared to electronic database, conventional system of records collection was laborious and time consuming, hence inefficient. Unlike traditional databases, new digital databases can be compiled wholly by a computer in accordance with certain instructions or certain parameters with less or no human activity. Gradually, electronic databases became popular and so also their protection. The legal definition of a database arises within the context of database protection. According to European Commission’s Databases Directive, the legal definition of a database, for the purpose of intellectual property law, states that the database shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means. U.S. Congressional bill (H.R. 354) defines it as information that has been collected and has been organised for the purpose of bringing discrete items of information together in one place or through one source so that persons may access them. Obviously, the definition does not intend to cover individual works which come under copyright. Other materials having a general nature include different kinds of expressed information. This will include not only literary and artistic works, but also databases of musical works, sounds and images. It may even include a web page itself. Precisely, a database does not have to consist of information which is stored electronically under these definitions, and can therefore include information which is recorded on paper. In the context of India, the word database itself appears in the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The closest definition of the term database is found in Section 43 Explanation (ii) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which defines computer database to mean a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions in text, image, audio, video that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner or have been produced by a computer, computer system or computer network and are intended for use in a computer, computer system or computer network. This definition appears to extend only to electronic databases. Section 2 (k) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines a computer resource to mean a computer, computer system, computer network, data, computer database or software. Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act 1957 defines a literary work to include computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer databases. This definition appears to include even non-electronic databases. Indian copyright law embodies copyright protection of compilations as literary works, but does not stipulate the content of a compilation. The definition of a literary work also embraces computer databases, which under the Information Technology Act, 2000 involves audio and video. It may be argued that the electronic databases may comprise of collections that are not restricted to only literary and artistic works. This raises the question whether ‘database’ is intended to include an anthology of poems,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reflections on the 25Th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone Service Co
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2017 Reach Out and Touch Someone: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Tyler T. Ochoa Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Craig Joyce University of Houston Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Automated Citation Tyler T. Ochoa and Craig Joyce, Reach Out and Touch Someone: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. , 54 HOUS. L. REV. 257 (2017), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/961 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Do Not Delete 11/22/2016 5:54 PM HISTORICAL ESSAY REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE: REFLECTIONS ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO. **Craig Joyce & Tyler T. Ochoa*** ABSTRACT 2016 marks the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., one of the Court’s landmark opinions in copyright law, and one that continues to define the standard of originality for copyrighted works in general and compilations of data in particular. The Feist case, however, was an unlikely candidate for landmark status.
    [Show full text]
  • 427177 1 En Bookbackmatter 171..189
    Concluding Remarks Amongst all the confusion and ambiguities with the database directive, especially with the sui generis part, one needs to re-visit the three options that the first evaluation report had suggested in the context of possible amendments to the Directive.1 The first proposal relates to the possibility of repealing database right, the second option is maintaining status quo and the third option is amending the current structure of the right.2 While first two options are not desirable, the third option is much more viable. The report proposed to repeal database right from the Directive.3 On a practical note, it will be difficult to execute such proposition. One must refer to the view expressed in the report itself. It considered the amount of resistance such action would face from European publishers.4 There may be additional legal uncertainty to roll back to the time when there was no database right in Europe. The implications would be felt mostly in Common Law jurisdictions.5 Based on high number of cases that have already been decided, the proposition of rolling back may increase uncertainty, instead of resolving concerns associated with database right.6 These observations indicate that it is difficult to reach a consensus to remove a piece of legislation.7 Therefore, repealing database right from the Directive is not an ideal option. 1‘DG Internal market and services working paper: First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases’ (Commission of the European Communities, 12 December 2005) available at <http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/databases/evaluation_report_en.pdf> (accessed 31 October 2016) (First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC), para [6].
    [Show full text]
  • Subject Index
    SUBJECT INDEX ABORTION National Law University, Delhi Abortion 1. Jalan, Varsha and Bajoria, Vivek Medical termination of pregnancy act, 1971: A doctrinal anachronism discounted by society ALL INDIA REPORTER, 96, 2009: p. 129. 2. Mathur, Anand Kishore D. Comparative study of abortion laws in various families of law. INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, II, 1979: p. 64. 3. Mathur, B.B.L. Constitutional limitations on abortion laws: A study of the American and the Indian law. INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, II, 1979: p. 110. 4. Shallu Debate on Abortion law: Controversial issue in medico-legal jurisprudence CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL, 2, 2010 (June): p. 175. ACCESS TO JUSTICE Access To Justice 5. Brooke, Lord Justice Access to justice and judicial review. JUDICIAL REVIEW, 11(1), 2006 (March): p. 1. 6. Chagtai, Nusrat Access to justice and human rights in malawi: The role of the malawi law society JUDICIAL REVIEW, 11(3), 2006 (September): p. 248. ACCIDENT Accident 7. Kumar, N. Vijia Rash and negligent driving of motor vehicles. SUPREME LAW TODAY, 2, 2008: p. 24. 8. Ramesan, V.P. Dazzling headlights and smashed dreams. CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL, 116 [1(3)], 2010 (February): p. 82. 15 16 Accounting National Law University, Delhi ACCOUNTING Accounting 9. Vittal, N. Role of the accounting profession: An outsider’s perspective INCOME TAX REPORTS, 272(1), 2005 (January): p. 1. ADJUDICATION Adjudication 10. Barmes, Lizzie Adjudication and public opinion. LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW, 118, 2002: p. 600. 11. Baxi, Upendra On the problematic distinction between “legislation” and “adjudications”: Forgotten aspect of dominance. DELHI LAW REVIEW, 12, 1990: p.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuelson Pamela IPSC Paper
    t Functional Compilations Pamela Samuelson* Abstract At some level, every human-made creation is a compilation. Yet, most do not qualify for copyright protection because the selection and arrangement of their component parts is inherent in the functional purpose for which they were designed. The Supreme Court’s decision in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service established that works of authorship must be “original” to qualify for copyright protection and that originality requires a “modicum” of creativity. However, the Court did not say how much or what kind of creativity would satisfy this standard. In the years since Feist, courts have sometimes reJected compilation copyright claims because the compilation was too functional to be protectable. Sometimes they have relied upon copyright’s exclusions of methods and systems to say that a systematic or methodical selection and/or arrangement of information is uncopyrightable. Other times, they have invoked the merger doctrine, as when the selection and arrangement was dictated by functionality. Still other decisions have ruled that functional selections or arrangements lack the originality necessary to qualify for copyright protections. This Article intends to unify the functional compilation case law by pointing out that regardless of the doctrinal hooks or linguistic characterization that courts use, it is the functionality of these compilations that limits copyright. Functionality as a general basis for disqualifying some compilations from copyrights has not been widely recognized in the case law and law review literature. Some judges and commentators have reJected the idea that functionality is ever a limit on copyright (except maybe as to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works whose expressive elements cannot be separated from functional elements).
    [Show full text]
  • Judgment Template
    Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2002] FCAFC 112 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BLACK CJ, LINDGREN & SACKVILLE JJ BLACK CJ: 1 I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs for the reasons given by Lindgren J and Sackville J, and add the following observations. 2 Ground of appeal 14 was that the primary judge should have found, on the evidence, that Telstra’s industry: “was not in collecting but was principally and relevantly limited to receiving (as a matter of monopolistic entitlement), checking, maintaining and publishing data.” 3 This ground was developed in par 14 of Desktop’s outline written submissions, which, omitting footnotes and the references to them, was as follows: “In this case the Judge erred in holding that the Respondent had satisfied the ‘industrious collection’ test for subsistence of copyright because, on the evidence, such industry as there was on the part of the Respondent was not in collecting, but principally and relevantly limited to receiving (as a matter of statutory monopolistic entitlement) data. The whole basis of the so-called ‘industrious collection’ approach is to protect the industry of a party from a commercially unfair free ride by copyists. There is no free ride here. All ‘industrious collection’ cases (especially those relied upon by Telstra) were ones where: (a) the copyist could have, with sufficient industry, replicated the database. That is not so here. No amount of industry could replicate the Telstra database because of the privileged position Telstra enjoys in granting lines and telephone numbers on the condition that the subscriber proves such information and updates it as requested.
    [Show full text]
  • Was Feist a Catalyst for the Structure of Database Directive? : a Legal Exploration of the Implications of the Feist Decision
    Was Feist a catalyst for the structure of Database Directive? : A legal exploration of the implications of the Feist decision A thesis submitted for the fulfillment of The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Indranath Gupta Brunel Law School Brunel University February, 2015 ABSTRACT This thesis studies the influence of US Supreme Court judgement in Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co on Directive 96/9/EC. It primarily looks at the implications of Feist decision, and the influence that it had on European legislation. The decision in Feist Publications led the Commission to believe two things: Feist created a new-line of jurisprudence in US in the context of copyright protection of factual databases, and the decision will be detrimental for future production of electronic databases. This thesis shows that the Feist decision was a clarification of existing copyright law. As an example, the thesis observes that the US database market did not react to any apprehended negative impact of Feist. In the US, where there was no specific Database Right, Feist has had negligible practical and doctrinal impact. The Feist decision also left an indelible mark on the overall structure of the Database Directive. While Article 3 represented the positive impact, Article 7 was surrounded by uncertainties and ambiguities. This Article represents the outcome of apprehending negative impact of Feist. This has resulted in an imbalance which must be rectified and only a limited amount of protection should be offered to producers in absence of evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works
    Digital Commons @ Georgia Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 10-1-2007 Thin But Not Anorexic: Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works David E. Shipley University of Georgia School of Law, [email protected] Repository Citation David E. Shipley, Thin But Not Anorexic: Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works (2007), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/245 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. THIN BUT NOT ANOREXIC: COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR COMPILATIONS AND OTHER FACT WORKS David E. Shipley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 92 II. THE FUNDAMENTALS OF Feist ................................. 94 III. APPLICATIONS OF Feist’s FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES .............. 98 A. DIRECTORIES ............................................ 99 B. CATALOGUE NUMBERS FOR PARTS .......................... 106 C. TASTE, OPINION, PREDICTIONS AND SOFT FACTS .............. 112 D. CLASSIFICATIONS AND TAXONOMIES ........................ 118 E. CHARTS, FORMS AND JUDICIAL REPORTS ..................... 125 IV. SYNTHESIS ................................................ 130 A. COPYRIGHTABILITY ...................................... 130 B. PROVING INFRINGEMENT ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Warren Publishing, Inc. V. Microdos Data Corp.: Continuing the Stable Uncertainty of Copyright in Factual Compilations Ethan R
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 74 | Issue 2 Article 6 1-1-1999 Warren Publishing, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp.: Continuing the Stable Uncertainty of Copyright in Factual Compilations Ethan R. York Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ethan R. York, Warren Publishing, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp.: Continuing the Stable Uncertainty of Copyright in Factual Compilations, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 565 (1999). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol74/iss2/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES WARREN PUBLISHING, INC. v. MICRODOS DATA CORP.: CONTINUING THE STABLE UNCERTAINTY OF COPYRIGHT IN FACTUAL COMPILATIONS I. INTRODUCTION In 1991, the Supreme Court proclaimed in the opening line of its unanimous decision in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Ser- vice Co. (Feist),' "This case requires us to clarify the extent of copyright protection available to telephone directory white pages." 2 Simultane- ous with this declaration was a collective cheer from a then-grateful intellectual property community that had previously faced unclear standards relating to copyrightability. Although the Court was dealing specifically with telephone white pages, those in the intellectual prop- erty field knew that the rules declared in Feist would be ipplicable to one of the most confusing and controversial aspects of copyright law: compilations.3 However, the stability and clarity that the Court seemed to prom- ise was short-lived.
    [Show full text]