DOCSLIB.ORG

427177 1 En Bookbackmatter 171..189

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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]. 2ibid. 3ibid, para [6.1]. 4ibid, para [1.5]. 5ibid, para [6.1]. 6Supra section 7.3. 7First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC, para [6]. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 171 I. Gupta, Footprints of Feist in European Database Directive, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3981-2 172 Concluding Remarks As to the second option of status quo, evaluation report suggested that the Directive might be left untouched. In future, database right is unlikely to create any additional burden in the context of dissemination and access to information.8 This argument was primarily based on the BHB decision. It was believed that ECJ ruling in this case successfully removed possible monopoly situation in relation to single-sourced databases.9 Despite this contention, monopolization of factual information still remains a concern.10 Hence, the option of status quo is not advisable, since there are legitimate concerns associated with this right. Although the remaining viable alternative is amending the Directive, one has to answer two questions: what kind of amendments are required; and whether these amendments would be able to resolve problems associated with database right. There have been different suggestions associated with the structure of database right.11 Mark Davison observed that narrower protection should be given based on weak economic argument, and proposed for an unfair competition model.12 Estelle Derclaye suggested that database right should be crafted in a way to exclude the over-protective elements.13 Elizabeth Herr noted that some protection is required but the structure must be decided only based on evidence.14 In his doctoral dis- sertation, Victor Bouganin proposed for a narrower right with compulsory licensing provision and more exceptions.15 Similarly, Annemarie Beunen proposed for a narrower right with the inclusion of compulsory licensing provision.16 Any such suggestion of improving the structure of the right, however, without evidence 8This suggestion primarily considered the decision of the ECJ in British Horse Racing v William Hill. According to the evaluation report, the ECJ has successfully curtailed some of the existing problems in the directive, Evaluation Report. 9In fact, owing to the removal of compulsory licensing provisions for single-sourced databases, under Article 16 of the Directive, periodical evaluation has been made a requirement to oversee any possible anti-competitive effect enshrined in the database right. Although the report did not refer to any independent study about the anti-competitive effect, there was reference to the decision of the ECJ concerning the protection of single-sourced databases under the database right. 10Supra section 7.3; Annemarie Beunen, Protection for databases: The European Database Directive and its effects in Netherlands, France and United Kingdom (Wolf Legal Publishers Leiden 2007) (n 123) 127–128. 11Work particularly concentrated on sui generis database right has seen three aspects; Narrower right with the inclusion of compulsory licensing provision for sole source databases, Beunen (n 10). 12Mark Davison, The legal protection of databases (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2003) (n 35). 13Estelle Derclaye, The Legal Protection of Databases: A Comparative Analysis (Edward Elgar, Northampton 2008) (n 51). 14Robin Elizabeth Herr, Is the Sui Generis Right a Failed Experiment? A legal and Theoretical Exploration of How to Regulate Unoriginal Database Contents and Possible Suggestions for Reform (DJØF Publishing Copenhagen, Denmark 2008). 15Victor Bouganin, ‘The legal protection of databases, from copyright to dataright’ (PhD thesis, University of London 1999). 16Beunen (n 10). Concluding Remarks 173 would be speculative in nature.17 The need for empirical evidence already exists in the background of criticism surrounding the database right.18 It would have been much easier to estimate the right at the beginning based on requirement, rather than adjusting the structure of such right subsequent to the enactment.19 One might wonder as to what would have happened without Feist.Asafirst reaction, the explanatory memorandum to the first draft proposal would not have contemplated about the apprehended ‘new-line’ of jurisprudence that Feist had developed, nor would it have questioned the role of ‘sweat of the brow’ argument as a basis for copyright protection.20 Further, the argument that more incentive is required in the form of a database right for producers would not have garnered any support.21 The argument that copyright protection for databases in Europe must be harmonized did not originate from the Feist decision.22 However, without the Feist decision, the Commission would only have the Berne standard for compilations to follow to decide the scope of Article 3.23 It is also clear that while the Commission wanted to remain within the broad structure of the Berne Convention, there was no intention to remain within the scope of the same.24 Therefore, without Feist, there would not have been any standard available, and it would have been difficult to predict the shape and structure of the Database Directive. 17“It may be regretted that such a strong exclusive right could be introduced on the mere basis of an assumed need”, Beunen (n 10) 279. 18The author concludes by saying that theoretical and empirical economic studies on the effects of the database right are highly desirable. Estelle Derclaye, ‘Intellectual property rights on infor- mation and market power – comparing European and American protection of databases’ (2007) 38 (3) IIC 275, 298. 19‘The preferable way’ would have been to improve ‘legal and factual analysis’ before taking up ‘far reaching measures’ by way of introducing the database right, Annette Kur and others, ‘First evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases- comment by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich’ (2006) 37(5) IIC 551, 551. 20ibid. 21Miriam Bitton, ‘Exploring the European Union Copyright Policy through the lens of the Database Directive’ (2008) 23(4) Berkeley Tech LJ 1411, 1426. 22Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of databases’ COM (92) 24 final, s 1. 23ibid, para [2.2.4]. 24ibid, paras [5.1.3] and [6.1.3]. Bibliography Statutes/Directives/Official Opinions Case-604/10 Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd [2012] ECDR 7, Opinion of AG Mengozzi Collections of Information Antipiracy Act HR 2652 105th Cong (1998) Commission, ‘Amended Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of Databases’ COM (93) 464 final Commission, ‘Copyright and the Challenge of Technology’ (Green Paper)’ COM (88) 172 final Commission, ‘Follow-up to the Green Paper: Working Programme of the Commission in the field of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights’ (Follow-up Green Paper) COM(90) 584 final Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of databases’ COM (92) 24 final Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of original topographies of semiconductor products’ COM (85) 775 final Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the Council, The European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the Main Events and Developments in the Information Market 1993–1994’ COM (95) 492 final Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c 18) Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act H R 1858 106th Cong (1999) Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988 (c 48) Council Common Position 20/95/EC of 10 July 1995 with a view to adopting the database directive [1995] OJ C 288 Council Common Position of 30th October 1995 regarding the Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of databases [1995] OJ C288 Council Directive 1991/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs [1991] OJ L122 Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22
Recommended publications
  • Reflections on the 25Th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone Service Co

    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.
  • Subject Index

    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.
  • Samuelson Pamela IPSC Paper

    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).
  • Judgment Template

    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.
  • 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

    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.
  • Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works

    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 ................................
  • General Overview of Intellectual Property

    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.
  • Warren Publishing, Inc. V. Microdos Data Corp.: Continuing the Stable Uncertainty of Copyright in Factual Compilations Ethan R

    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.