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

From: Timothy Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:55:23 -0500 (CDT)

As others have pointed out, copyright in databases protects selection, coordination (for example, cross-references) and arrangement of data. No new law is needed for collections of information that are protected in this way. Getting a datum right is not "originality" for copyright purposes. Identifying relationships among data items, sorting items in an original way that makes them easy to use and understand, and eliminating irrelevant information can be acts of original authorship.

Is the database bill necessary ? My answer is, "No and maybe." In situations where the public-goods problem operates and the compilation copyright doesn't protect adequately, some sort of new misappropriation law or sui-generis protection may be needed. But the database bill presently in congress is an alarmist over-reaction to a problem whose existence has not clearly been demonstrated. The proponents want to create sweat-of-the-brow protection for everything that can possibly be construed as a
"collection of information."

A reasonable sui-generis proposal would confine itself to specific sorts of compilations for which compilation copyright has clearly failed. I could see how this might happen for maps, for example, but perhaps mapmakers and the courts have found compilation copyright sufficient. The reports I have seen identify publishers of law reports, not mapmakers, as the chief sponsors of the database bill.

A reasonable misappropriation approach might be to protect the first-comer's first-to-market advantage with a short lock-out term (no longer than a year) and confine itself to protecting
"actual" markets against quantitatively substantial copying.
Maybe it would not stretch misappropriation law too much to presume a sort of time-sensitivity if a second-comer wants to follow the first-comer to market within a few months. The present proposal's vague protection of "potential" markets, its attempt to protect against qualitatively substantial copying, and its absurdly long 15-year lock-out term would create an extremely broad form of protection with uncertain boundaries.

Tim Phillips
<hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com>

DISCLAIMER: This post (and all my posts) contains private opinions only. Nothing in this post (or any other of my posts to this or any other place on the web) is legal advice, and nothing in this post (or any other of my posts) should be construed as establishing a lawyer-client relationship. I'm not even a lawyer! Received on Tue Sep 29 1998 - 14:54:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:32 GMT