Re: Databases, creativity, and copyright -- what's missing is wrong?

On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> If data selection, quality assurance, and validation routines are
> original and creative activities, were they raised in the arguments
> in this case?

Data selection, yes. Quality assurance and validation routines, no. The former requires a creative activity on the part of the selector. The last two latter do not require creative activity but require some monotonous, non-creative, repetitive steps on the part of the checkers, which fall under the category of "sweat of the brow".

> I find no indication that they were considered significant in the
> ruling. If these activities are sufficient to impart originality to
> the resulting database, shouldn't databases be considered copyrightable,
> and protected (as a whole) under the existing 1980 Copyright Act?

Yes, database can be copyrighted if there is a spark of creativity in the database.

A database as the result of the following SQL statement:

       select * from listofbooks

is not copyrightable because it is just a copy of the existing data.

But, a database that contains the rows as the result of the following SQL statement:

       select * from listofbooks where subject = "semiotics" and
         typeofbook = "hardcover" and publication_date >
         "1/1/1990"

is copyrightable. However, the copyright in that database does not extend to the individual row and column inside the database. Hence, the copyright is very thin.

> Is the 1998 Database Act really necessary?

Personally, I hate it. But, the dark force of the love of money is too great in the U.S. that that act is really a big pot of gold for the investors, publishers, knowledge providers, universities, and museums.

To use the pipeline and water as a weak analogy: Copyright covers water. The pending database bill covers the pipeline. When you build a pipeline with a lot of sweat, the bill gives you the monopolistic control over the pipeline. Anyone who wants to drink a cup of water (figuratively speaking - anyone who wants to access a piece of knowledge) has to ask for permission to use the pipeline or pay a charge for using the pipeline (that is, has to ask for permission to copy the knowledge that may or may not be copyrightable or pay a fee for accessing it).

To answer your question, no, it is not necessary. But then, not all the laws in the U.S. are necessary.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> Received on Mon Sep 28 1998 - 22:43:19 GMT