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 ........................................................................