Ian Batten said: >> The merits of the case seem weak to me, since database do not have copyright >> protection. Facts cannot be copyrighted any more than a telephone book. > > It's not as simple as that in EU law, and it appears not to be in US law. > See http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html --- the test for > information being copyrightable is high, but not unattainable.
That page is a bit behind. There was a cluster of ECJ cases about the sui generis right. For a start, the right only applies where there is a substantial effort in creating the *database*; the effort involved in creating the *data* doesn't count. And what's protected is the collection or a substantive part of it, not individual items of data. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646 _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
