Comments on: Europe’s Database Right: A scary concept

By: Charles Oppenheim

Charles Oppenheim — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:40:16 +0000

The EU database right, introduced in 1996, has very restricted application. It only applies to collections of data where the creator has expended significant resource in obtaining, presenting or verifying the contents. Thus, a database that just happens to “fall out” of work the creator was undertaking anyway (say creating a list of runners in a horse race) does not qualify for database right. Thus EU law is not in fact that much different to US law post Feist case.

Because Ms Cabot has misunderstood the limits to EU database rights, she has made a mountain out of a molehill. And, as others have pointed out, Freedom of Information legislation – common in many EU countries – is also very relevant.

By: ManagementPawn

ManagementPawn — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:06:04 +0000

“European law does not recognize those kinds of taxpayer rights”

I do so enjoy when political prejudice against Europe gets in the way of actual facts. While I cannot speak for other European countries, the UK governments (Whitehall and the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) all have robust Freedom of Information acts which places a duty of openness on all government departments, even down to town council level.

Government publications are released under Crown copyright (allows commercial and non-commercial use with attribution), which has existed since long before the founders of Creative Commons were born. For example, the censuses are published in full online; you can download hundreds of tables of information cut almost any way you could imagine. For free.

Of course, you are also posting your point on the WorldWideWeb, developed at CERN, which is funded by European taxpayers. Last I checked, the Internet was the single greatest contributor to Open Data and we gave it away to the entire world for free.

By: Ross Bernheim

Ross Bernheim — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:55:43 +0000

Copyright should accrue to works with some originality. Merely aggregating the work of others with no additional original content should not be worthy of copyright. Copyright should not be about how much it cost to do, but rather about promoting new and original works.

By: Frank Lowney

Frank Lowney — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:23:01 +0000

This is also the subject of much debate, in the US and UK especially, where governments have funded research and then academic journal publishers charge an arm and a leg for access to it. The argument, as here, is that taxpayers have already paid for the work and it should, therefore, be freely available. Here’s a nice explainer: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1533
However, some government officials are taking the position that charging for access to such information relieves the burden of taxation allowing more research to be funded without higher taxes. Of course one must “follow the money” to determine if, in fact, government coffers are replenished or if private pockets are lined.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 02:18:03 +0000

This is a nitpick, but Jane Eyre, not Wuthering Heights, was the basis or Wide Sargasso Sea.

By: Felix Torres

Felix Torres — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:20:48 +0000

I don’t know if it has changed but in the US databases can be copyrighted as a whole but the material inside is not. The logic behind it is that what is being protected is not the data but the organization of the data in the compilation.
Here’s a bit of history:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html

The european case seems to be based on the older (and in the US, deprecated) “sweat of the brow” 19th century justification.
So much for “information wants to be free” in europe.

Now, in the US most government-produced material is supposed to be copyrighted but freely-available by default with only limited exceptions. And the Freedom of Information Act was crafted to allow for challenges to the exceptions.
(For example, I was recently looking into the copyright status of those gorgeous NASA space images and was pleased to find they are generally released under Creative Commons and pretty any (commercial and non-commercial) use that does not imply Agency endorsement is allowed.)
The logic there is, in fact, that the taxpayer has already paid for the creation of the content and thus has a proprietary interest in it already.

Obviously, european law does not recognize those kinds of taxpayer rights.
(Shrug)
Different social contracts.