Not being a legal bod, let me at least see if I can get the pieces in order...
There is no copyright on ideas.
1. British (and therefore US) Copyright law is to protect the investor.
2. EU tradition is copyright law is to protect the 'real creator'. The 'originator'.
How does EU law reconcile the two approaches?
First attempt was the UK approach to software development -- which gives the legal right for all the developers be listed.
Second attempt was in the area of databases. (The person who developed this law is now banned from the US.) The directive on legal protection of databases tries to combine approaches 1 and 2. Where the db is treated as a literary work and needs to be original content. And the concept of a 'maker' was introduced to protect the investor (employer.)
The directive also introduced the concept of 'reciprocity'. That is, USA databases only get legal protection rights if they accept the law of the directive for EU databases.
Case 1. The British Horse Racing Board (/Agency) -- First application of the Directive in practice by the European Court of Justice.
The cost of running the BHRB database is £4m per year. But William Hill bookies are using it without making any contribution. Protection is for the investment of gathering the data, not creating it. Extraction and re-utilisation of the data has to be for a 'substantial part' (undefined) of the db. As William Hill only use the winners they were in the clear.
Case 2: German Anthology of German Poetry.
A prof though of the idea of getting someone to compare three collections of german poetry to determine which were the most popular German poems between 1700 and 1900. This research was funded by the University of Freiberg.
Then Direct Media made their own collection of the most popular poems between 1700 and 1900 on a CD. The collection was slightly different to the Univ db but they admitted referring to the db as one of the sources while compiling their list.
The Prof AND the university sued Direct Media.
The court decided that the prof was a copyright holder because it was his idea. (Descpite the fact that ideas are not protect by copyright law!). But if data is stored on the internet there is an explicit aknowledgement that the information is being made freely available.
First time ever a German Univ has sued for copyright. (Traditionally in Europe, Univ don't get copyright protection.) But this was protection of the investment.
Direct Media argued they had not 'extracted' the data but simply referred to it. The European Court of Justice Advocate General ruled that the broadest interpretation possible should be given to protect databases. So 'extraction' is not cut and paste. Extraction protection is greater than copyright holder protection. (Which is not the 'broadest possible interpretation.) Plus, the univ has rights to the work even if the Prof (who has the copyright) wanted to give the data away.
The way out is to have an Information Law, of which copyright is subsidiary. The EU db directive was intended to encourage economic activity. In a study of EU database companies the conclusion was the law had NO economic benefit. However it was considered 'too expensive' to remove the directive!
Over wine:
1.Brussels has no Law Library. So if an individual wants to bring attention to something he has to pay out of his own pocket to send the books to each individual. (Guess what the lobby companies do!)
2. There is no record kept of the revisions of the legislation. So you cannot track what was changed after which meeting with X lobbyist. (The lobbyist are usually faxed the first draft of the legislation.)
Afterthought:
The advantage of law by precedent.
In the case of EU law such as this directive there is no mechanism to trigger to changing or clarifying it.
Reference: Congress
No comments:
Post a Comment