DOCSLIB.ORG

Was Feist a Catalyst for the Structure of Database Directive? : a Legal Exploration of the Implications of the Feist Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. ABBREVIATIONS AOIC: Author’s own Intellectual Creation Ariz. St. L J: Arizona State Law Journal ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange BCL L Rev: Boston College Law Review Berkeley Tech LJ: Berkeley Technology Law Journal BHB: British Horseracing Board BGH-IZR: German Federal Court of Justice Can Bus L J: Canadian Business Law Journal Chicago-Kent L Rev: Chicago-Kent Law Review CIS: Congressional Information Service CJEU: The Court of Justice of the European Union CLR Int’l: Computer Law Review International CLSR: Computer Law and Security Report CMLR: Common Market Law Review Colum J L & Soc Probs: Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems Colum L Rev: Columbia Law Review COM: Commission Comm & Law: Communication and Law Computer L Rev & Tech: Computer Law Review and Technology CPDA: Copyright Designs and Patent Act CRDR: Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations CW: Copyright World DePaul- LCA J. Art & Ent L: DePaul- LCA Journal of Art and Entertainment Law DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act E L Rev: European Law Review EADP: European Association of Directory and Database Publishers EBBA: European Border Breakers Awards ECC: European Commercial Cases ECDR: European Copyright and Design Report ECJ: The European Court of Justice ECR: European Court Reports ECU: European Currency Unit EDNY: Eastern District of New York EEC: European Economic Community EEPROM: Electronically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory EIPR: European Intellectual Property Review Ent L Rev: Entertainment Law Review EWCA: England and Wales Code of Appeal EWHC: High Court of England and Wales Federal Bar News & J: Federal Bar News & Journal Fordham Int’l LJ: Fordham International Law Journal Fordham Intell Prop Media & Ent L J: Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Law Journal FSR: Fleet Street Reports GDD: Gale Directory of Databases Harv L Rev: Harvard Law Review Hellenic Rev of Int’l L: Hellenic Review of International Law High Tech L J: High Tech Law Journal ICC Reports: Investors Capital Corporation Reports IDEA Intell Prop L Rev: IDEA Intellectual Property Law Review IIC: International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law IJLIT: International Journal of Law and Information Technology Int’l Rev of L & Econ: International Review of Law and Economics Int’l Tax & Bus Law: International Tax and Business Law Iowa L Rev: Iowa Law Review IPQ: Intellectual Property Quarterly IPR: Intellectual Property Review IVIR: Institute for Information Law J Econ Persp: Journal of Economic Perspectives J Industrial Economics: Journal of Industrial Economics J Intell Prop L: Journal of Intellectual Property Law J Legal Stud: The Journal of Legal Studies J of Tech L & P: Journal of Technology Law and Policy Minn L Rev: Minnesota Law Review Neb L Review: Nebraska Law Review Notre Dame L Rev: Notre Dame Law Review NRP: National Register Publishing Ohio St L J: Ohio State Law Journal OJ C: Official Journal of the European Union Information and Notices OJ L: Official Journal of the European Union Legislation Org Sci: Organization Science Pat Trademark & Copyright J: Patent Trademark and Copyright Journal PTO: Patent and Trading Office RDF: Raw Data Feed RIDA: The Revue Internationale Du Droit D’Auteur Roger Williams UL Review: Roger Williams University Law Review RPC: Restrictive Practices Court RRP: Reed Reference Publishing RTDcom: Revue trimestrielle de droit commercial et de droit économique Santa Clara L Rev: Santa Clara Law Review SDNY: Southern District of New York Tex L Rev: Texas Law Review The Geor Wash J of Int L & Econ: The George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics The Geor Wash L R: The George Washington Law Review TPM: Technological Protection Measures TRIPS: Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights U Cin L Rev: University of Cincinnati Law Review U Dayton L Rev: University of Dayton Law Review U Pitt L R: University of Pittsburgh Law Review UCLA L Rev: University of California Law Review UKHL: United Kingdom House of Lords Univ of Ottawa L T J: University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal USPQ: United States Patents Quarterly USPTO: United States Patent and Trademark Office VA JL & Tech: Virginia Journal of Law and Technology Vand L Rev: Vanderbilt Law Review Wash U J L & Pol’y: Washington University Journal of Law and Policy WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization WLR: Weekly Law Reports Yale J of L & Tech: Yale Journal of Law & Technology TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 9 1.0 Background to the thesis ........................................................................................ 10 2.0 Scope of the thesis .................................................................................................. 15 3.0 Methods Adopted ..................................................................................................... 24 4.0 Structure of the Chapters ......................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 1: FEIST CONCERN IN EUROPE FOR DATABASE PROTECTION……..29 1.0 The argument for a Database Directive in the draft Proposal ................................. 30 1.1Incentive for database producers .................................................................. 34 1.2 Database production through strengthening legal structure in Europe .......... 35 2.0 Concern about protecting electronic databases ....................................................... 38 2.1 Was there uncertainty among producers? ................................................... 43 2.2 Was there a case for sui generis Database Right? ...................................... 44 2.3 Copyright preferred among stakeholders ...................................................... 46 3.0 Two-tier structure of Database Directive .................................................................. 48 4.0 Does legal incentive guarantee database production? ........................................... 52 4.1 Role of copyright in producing creative work ................................................. 52 4.1.1 Uncertainty remains with production ............................................. 55 4.1.2 Merger of intrinsic and extrinsic factors ......................................... 57 4.2 Argument for a Database Right for non-original databases .......................... 59 5.0 Evaluating incentive requirement through first evaluation report of 96/9/EC ........... 61 5.1 Question of investment and production ......................................................... 65 5.1.1 Increase in investment is not explicit ............................................. 65 5.1.2 History of database production questions incentive ...................... 68 5.2 Was economic evidence required before enactment? ................................. 71 5.2.1 No consultation of any evidence ................................................... 72 5.2.2 Issue of imbalance ....................................................................... 73 6.0 Feist at centre stage of European database debate ................................................ 75 6.1 Change in the requirement of copyright protection ........................................ 78 6.2 The incentive of sweat of the brow argument for electronic databases ......... 80 6.3 Assumption of adverse effect ....................................................................... 81 CHAPTER 2: FEIST THRESHOLD FOR COMPILATIONS WAS NOT A NEW-LINE OF JURISPRUDENCE IN US…………………………………………………………………….83 1.0 Feist decision: guiding principles for factual compilation .......................................... 84 1.1 Constitutional reference as a preventive measure ....................................... 96 1.2 Less stringent creativity requirement but limited protection ........................... 98 2.0 Continuation of existing law in US ........................................................................
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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]