Threshold of Author’s Own Intellectual Creation

Gupta, Indranath

doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3981-2_5

Indranath Gupta²

395 Accesses

Abstract

The harmonization of copyright protection for databases was done in the background of uncertainty with the threshold of originality required for protection of compilations in Europe. The Directive left the meaning assigned to author’s own intellectual creation AOIC undefined after the harmonization. At the European level, CJEU interpreted the scope of Article 3 in Football Dataco decision. According to CJEU there are certain guidelines to be followed by a database maker to merit copyright protection, but the threshold should be decided by the courts in member states. The CJEU held that scope of Article 3 is only limited to storage and processing of existing data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Council Directive of 1996/9/EC of 27 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases [1996] OJ L 77/20 (Council Directive 96/9/EC), art 3.
2.
Infra section 5.2.
3.
ibid.
4.
ibid.
5.
ibid.
6.
Infra section 5.3.
7.
ibid.
8.
Council Directive 96/9/EC, art 3.
9.
Case C-604/10 Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd [2012] ECDR 10, 194 (Football Dataco).
10.
Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1380, [2011] ECDR 9; Article 3 of the Database Directive has been incorporated in the UK under section 3A of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988.
11.
Football Dataco Ltd v Brittens Pools Ltd [2010] EWHC 841(Ch) sections 83–90 (Football Dataco 2).
12.
ibid, paras [12]–[13].
13.
ibid, para [14].
14.
ibid.
15.
Golden rules: “i) No club shall have 3 consecutive home or away matches (i.e. no HHH or AAA); ii) In any five consecutive matches no club shall have four home matches or four away matches (e.g. AAHAA) is not permissible; iii) As far as possible, each club should have played an equal number of home and away matches at all times during the season; iv) All clubs should have as near as possible an equal number of home or away matches for mid-week matches”, Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [10]; ibid, paras [15]–[21].
16.
ibid.
17.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) paras [15]–[21].
18.
ibid, para [22].
19.
ibid, para [23].
20.
Council Directive 96/9/EC; In fact, Football Dataco Limited has been trying to invoke licenses on the basis of copyright ever since the BHB decision, Sarah Wright and Priya Vatvani, ‘Death of the Database Right’ (2005) 153 CW 8.
21.
ibid; Article 7 conferring database right protection to a database maker has been incorporated in the UK under the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997/3032 (CRDR).
22.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11); The ECJ in the case involving Fixture Marketing case [Case C-444/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Organismos Prognostikon Agnon Podosfairou (OPAP) [2005] ECDR 3 (Organismos)], said a fixture list comes under the definition of database under Article 1 of the Directive, 42; Article 1 or the definition of database has been incorporated in the UK under CDPA, section 3.
23.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11).
24.
ibid, paras [67]–[68].
25.
ibid, para [69].
26.
ibid.
27.
ibid, para [101].
28.
ibid, paras [41]–[44].
29.
ibid, para [74]; This view point is also expressed in the seminal article of Robert Denicola where he says that “the effort of authorship can be effectively encouraged and rewarded only by linking the existence and extent of protection to the total labour of production. To focus on the superficial form of the final product to the exclusion of the effort expended in collecting the data presented in the work is to ignore the central contribution of the compiler”. Robert C Denicola, ‘Copyright in Collections of Facts : A theory for the protection of nonfiction literary works’ (1981) 81(3) Colum L Rev 516, 530; The basis, however, is labour and not adoption of creativity in selection or arrangement as expressed in the Dataco case.
30.
Floyd J. in Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [82].
31.
ibid, paras [83]–[90].
32.
ibid, para [91].
33.
ibid.
34.
Council Directive 96/9/EC.
35.
Sir Hugh Laddie and others, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (3^rd edn Butterworths 2000) 1068–1071.
36.
It must be remembered that the Directive explicitly said: “no criterion other than originality in the sense of the author’s intellectual creation should be applied to determine the eligibility of the database for copyright protection, and in particular no aesthetic or qualitative criteria should be applied”, Council Directive 96/9/EC, Recital 16.
37.
Laddie and others (n 35) 1070.
38.
The meaning of several is more than two but not many; Oxford Online Dictionary available at <http://oxforddictionaries.com/> (accessed 12 January 2012).
39.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [91]; “A computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation. No other criteria shall be applied to determine its eligibility for protection”, Council Directive 1991/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs [1991] OJL122/1, art 1 para 3.
40.
Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Foreing [2009] ECDR 16, 261.
41.
ibid, para [87].
42.
[2005] ECC 12.
43.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [90].
44.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11).
45.
ibid, paras [42]–[43] and [82].
46.
ibid.
47.
ibid, para [90].
48.
This is an objective requirement unlike the subjective requirement under author’s right system, Ramon Casas Valles, The requirement of originality in Estelle Derclaye (ed), Research Handbook on the future of EU Copyright (Edward Elgar 2009); Daniel J Gervais, ‘Feist goes global: A comparative analysis of the notion of originality in copyright law’ (2002) 49(4) Journal of Copyright Society of the US 949, 952.
49.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) paras [83]–[90].
50.
ibid.
51.
Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of databases’ COM (92) 24 final (COM (92) 24 final), para [3.1.8].
52.
Council Directive 96/9/EC.
53.
Supra section 2.3.
54.
ibid.
55.
Mr. Glen Thompson representing the claimants and was the person engaged in pairing and sequencing, Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [15].
56.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [44].
57.
ibid, paras [15]–[21].
58.
ibid, para [86].
59.
ibid, para [82].
60.
[1959]1 Ch 637.
61.
ibid, 656.
62.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [82].
63.
ibid.
64.
ibid.
65.
ibid.
66.
ibid, (n 11) para [98].
67.
ibid, paras [86] and [90].
68.
Council Directive 96/9/EC.
69.
Mark J Davison, The legal protection of databases (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2003), 73; Irini A Stamatoudi, ‘The EU Database Directive: reconceptualising copyright and retracting the future of sui generis right’ (1997) 50 Hellenic Rev of Int’l L 435; Laddie and others (n 35) 1070.
70.
ibid.
71.
Davison (n 69) 73.
72.
Council Directive 96/9/EC.
73.
COM (92) 24 final, Recitals 14 and 15, para [3.1.8]; Council Directive 96/9/EC, Recitals 15 and 16.
74.
Council Directive 96/9/EC, art 3.
75.
ibid.
76.
ibid, paras [86] and [90].
77.
General idea from the Feist case, Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service, 499 US 340 (1991).
78.
Council Directive 96/9/EC, Art 3.
79.
Jerome H Reichman and Pamela Samuelson, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in data?’ (1997) 50(1) V and L Rev 51, 72.
80.
ibid.
81.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [84].
82.
“…Although there is no requirement to demonstrate aesthetic or qualitative criteria, there must be a quantitative baseline of originality before protection is acquired” [2001] RPC 31 at [28]; this decision is considered in section 7.3.
83.
Council Directive 96/9/EC, Recital 15 and 16.
84.
Infopaq International (n 40).
85.
ibid.
86.
ibid.
87.
This decision was based on the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) where the ECJ said, “storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words “may amount to reproduction under copyright, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author”, Infopaq International (n 40) 272-273.
88.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) paras [89]–[90].
89.
ibid, para [90].
90.
ibid.
91.
[2010] EWCA Civ 1380, [2011] ECDR 9, para [4].
92.
ibid; Rachel Montagnon and Mark Shillito, ‘Requirements for subsistence of database copyright and other national copyright in databases referred to the ECJ: Football Dataco v Yahoo!’ (2011) 32(5) EIPR 324,324.
93.
[2011] ECDR 9, para [4].
94.
ibid, para [16].
95.
[2010] EWCA Civ 1380, [2011] ECDR 9, para [18].
96.
[2010] EWCA Civ 1380, [2011] ECDR 9, Para [22].
97.
One must remember that tables and compilations are still protected as a literary work in the UK and may be protected separately under the ‘sweat of the brow’ threshold instead of AOIC under section 3A.
98.
‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: Part II—Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights’ (World Trade Organisation) art 10(2), available at <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm> (accessed 22 November 2008); The Article states, “Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself”.
99.
Football Dataco (n 9) 193.
100.
ibid.
101.
ibid 185.
102.
ibid 194.
103.
ibid.
104.
ibid 185.
105.
ibid 184.
106.
Infra section 5.3.
107.
Football Dataco (n 9) 193 and 185.
108.
ibid.
109.
ibid 194.
110.
ibid 194.
111.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [82].
112.
ibid para [74]; This view point is also expressed in the seminal article of Robert Denicola where he says that “the effort of authorship can be effectively encouraged and rewarded only by linking the existence and extent of protection to the total labour of production. To focus on the superficial form of the final product to the exclusion of the effort expended in collecting the data presented in the work is to ignore the central contribution of the compiler”. Denicola (n 29) 530; The basis, however, is labour and not adoption of creativity in selection or arrangement as expressed in the Dataco case.
113.
Football Dataco (n 9) 194.
114.
It appears from the explanatory memorandum to the proposal that the Commission expects most databases to fulfil the necessary criteria for copyright protection” Elizabeth Weightman and Jean Hughes, ‘EC Database protection: fine tuning the Commission’s Proposal’ (1992) 14(5) EIPR 147, 148.
115.
Football Dataco 2 (n 11) para [90].
116.
Football Dataco (n 9) 193.
117.
ibid.
118.
ibid.
119.
ibid.
120.
Like the database in question involving Fooball Dataco.
121.
Football Dataco (n 9).
122.
British Horseracing case forms a part of the final chapter, infra section 7.3.
123.
Infra section 7.3.2.
124.
ibid 185 and 194.
125.
G Koumantos, ‘Les bases de donnees dans la directive communautaire’, 1997/171 RIDA and Ph Gaudrat, ‘Loi de transposition de la directive 96/9 du 11 mars 1996 sur les bases de donnees: dispositions relatives au droit d’auteur’ (1 partie), RTDcom 1998 in Annemarie Beunen, Protection for databases: The European Database Directive and its effects in Netherlands, France and United Kingdom (Wolf Legal Publishers Leiden 2007) 80.
126.
Jens L Gaster ‚‘The EU Council of Ministers’ common position concerning the legal protection of databases: a first comment’ (1995) 6(7) Ent L Rev 258, 260.
127.
ibid 258 and 260.
128.
Beunen (n 125) 76.
129.
William Cornish and others, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (7^th edn. Sweet & Maxwell London 2010) 449.
130.
Football Dataco (n 9) 185.
131.
First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC, para [1.1].
132.
ibid; Tanya Aplin, Copyright Law in the Digital Society: the challenges of multimedia (Hart Publishing 2005) 55.
133.
Council Directive 96/9/EC.
134.
Tanya Aplin, Subject Matter in Estelle Derclaye (ed), Research Handbook on the future of EU Copyright (Edward Elgar 2009) 54.
135.
They are: literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, sound recordings, films, broadcasting and published editions, Copyright Designs and Patent Act, 1988 section 1(1).
136.
‘Article L112-1 of the Intellectual Property Code’ (LexInter) available at <http://www.lexinter.net/ENGLISH/intellectual_property_code.htm> (accessed 10 January 2011); Aplin (n 134) 58.
137.
They are “… derived from different philosophies and the spirit in which protection is acquired is not the same”, Michel Vivant, Protection of Raw Data and Data Banks in France in Bernt Hugenholtz & Egbert J Dommering (eds) Protecting Works of Fact: Copyright, Freedom of Expression and Information Law (Kluwer law and Taxation publishers, 1991) 74; Kevin Garnett, Gillian Davis, Gwilym Harbottle and others (eds) Copinger and Skone James on Copyright vol1 (Sweet & Maxwell 2011 16^th edn) 6; Stating that copyright and droit d’ auteur work share a same ground and the conflict is often exaggerated, Valles (n 48) 109; the concept of work is not harmonized at the European level, Valles (n 48); the term work in Europe is at an unknown level, Christian Handig, ‘The copyright term “work” – European harmonisation at an unknown level’ (2009) 40(6) IIC 665; At the moment it harmonizes only three categories: computer programs, photographs and databases; It is, however, misleading to suggest that copyright laws were passed in France to promote authorship and in the UK were passed keeping in mind a commercial centric approach. Historically both countries shared same philosophy and purpose in relation to the introduction of copyright and “these laws were of a trade-regulatory nature, employed by the authorities to destroy the monopoly enjoyed by a certain groups” in France and UK, Makeen Fouad Makeen Copyright in a Global Information Society: The Scope of Copyright Protection Under International, US, UK and French Law (Studies in Law) (Kluwer Law International 2000) 30.
138.
Copinger and James (n 137) 4; JAL Sterling, Comparison of the copyright and author’s right systems (8 June 1998) Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London, offprint collection, shelf number: X0054.
139.
Valles (n 48); the term work in Europe is at an unknown level, Christian Handig (n 137) 110; Owing to harmonisation at the European level, certain aspects of author’s right has been incorporated in the UK. For example the introduction of principal director as one of the authors in a film, along with the producer, Copinger and James (n 137) 6.
140.
As a result the author is granted exclusive rights, including moral rights, ibid; under the author’s right, alongside economic rights under copyright system, moral rights are entrenched in it, JAL Sterling (n 138).
141.
‘Book II of the Intellectual Property Code’ (LexInter) available at <http://lexinter.net/ENGLISH/intellectual_property_code.htm> (accessed January 10 2011); ibid, 57; the moral rights in the UK are provided in the CDPA of 1988.
142.
Copinger and James (n 137) 5.
143.
Council Directive 96/9/EC, Art 3.
144.
Cornish and others (n 129) 9.
145.
CPD of 1988; the requirement that a work needs to be ‘original’ was only added to the Copyright Act of 1911, Cornish and others (n 129) 447; Keeping an eye on compilation, the originality standard is restricted to literary work.
146.
[1916] 2Ch 601, 609; this was said while deciding the copyrightability of mathematics question paper.
147.
ibid.
148.
Lord Atkinson in Macmillan v Cooper (1923) 93 LJPC 113; Lord Justice Mummery Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 565 [2005] 1 WLR 3281 para [31].
149.
Lionel Bently and William R Cornish, United Kingdom in Paul Edward Geller and Melville B Nimmer (eds) International Copyright Law and Practice (Lexis Nexis 2009 volume 2) 2[1][b][i].
150.
Lord Atkinson said that the amount of skill, labour or judgement is a matter of degree and depends on the facts of a specific case, Macmillian v Cooper (1923) 93 LJPC; Lord Devlin in Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273 has suggested substantial degree of skill, industry or experience; Upjohn J said some amount of labour, skill, labour or ingenuity in Football League v Littlewoods Pools [1959] Ch. 637, 638-639.
151.
ibid.
152.
ibid.
153.
ibid, 650-651.
154.
ibid.
155.
Ladbroke (n 150) 274.
156.
ibid.
157.
H Blacklock & Co Ltd v C Arthur Pearson Ltd [1915] 2 Ch, 376.
158.
ibid.
159.
Libraco Ltd v Shaw Walker Ltd (1913) 58 Sol Jo 48.
160.
Rose v Information Services Ltd [1987] FSR 254.
161.
Section 3(1) (a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act, 1988, available at <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents> (accessed 10 November 2010); Moreover in the UK, two different originality standards are maintained for ‘compilations’ and ‘databases’. Compilations are protected as a literary work on the basis of the low standard of sufficient ‘labour, skill and judgement (while databases for copyright protection follows the new AOIC criterion (section 3(A)(2)), Aplin (n 132) 52-53; Also see Estelle Derclaye, ‘Do sections 3 and 3A of the CDPA violate the Database Directive? A closer look at the definition of a database in the U.K. and its compatibility with European law ‘(2002) 24(10) EIPR 466.
162.
Copinger and James (n 137) 155.
163.
CDPA s3 (1) (a) & (d).
164.
The claimants published compilation of a monthly guide of train timetables of various railways in the United Kingdom. It was comprehensive and was indexed alphabetically with numbers. The Court held copyright infringement in the act of copying such factual index. Blacklock (n 157) 376; There was copyright infringement, since the second comer did not expend the same effort in collecting facts similar to the claimant, Kelly v Morris [1959] Ch 637.
165.
[2000] ECDR 99.
166.
This decision shows that there is a tension between a computer program and database. The Directive clearly says that it will not apply to computer programs used in the making or operation of databases accessible by electronic means, Database Directive 96/9/EC, art 1(3); Davison (n 69) 71.
167.
‘Opinion of Lord Macfadyen in ‘Sietech Hearing Limited v. Russell Borland, James Eley, Digital Hearing (UK) Limited’ (Court of Session, 19 February 2003) [2003] E.C.D.R. 26.
168.
In Royal Mail Group Plc. v. i-CD Publishing (UK) Limited [2003] EWHC 2038, again the matter of threshold was not discussed.
169.
[2011] EWCA Civ 330, [2011] 1 WLR 3044; There has been a recent decision between the same parties where Sportradar was not held to be jointly liable for UK users who accessed their database, Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar GmbH [2012] EWHC 1185 (Ch), [2012] 26 ECC 273.
170.
[2011] EWCA Civ 330, [2011] 1 WLR 3044, para [16].
171.
ibid.
172.
ibid.
173.
Section 3A has been introduced to specifically address the requirement of databases, CDPA, 1988 (1988 c. 48).
174.
ibid, section 3(1) (a) of the CDPA still protects table and compilation other than section 3A which protects databases.
175.
Derclaye (n 161).
176.
After the ECJ decision involving Fixtures Marketing “there are several indications of the intention of the Community legislature to give the term database as defined in the directive, a wide scope, unencumbered by considerations of a formal, technical or material nature”, Organismos (n 22).
177.
Libraco (n 159).
178.
For instance, alphabetic list of stations, Blacklock (n 157).
179.
ibid.
180.
The common law countries moved towards ‘‘sweat of the brow’’ copyright in the absence of the law of unfair competition, ‘William Rodolph Cornish, ‘Protection for and vis-à-vis Databases’ in Marcel Dellebeke (ed), Copyright in Cyberspace: Copyright and the Global Information Infrastructure (Otto Cramwinckel, Amsterdam, 1997) 436; Daniel Gervais shares the same view but also adds that this originality threshold contravenes the creative originality requirement under the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, Daniel Gervais, ‘The Compatibility of the Skill and Labour Originality Standard with the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement’ (2004) 26(2) EIPR 75, 78.
181.
Cornish and others (n 129) 447–448.
182.
Jeweler’s Circular Publishing Co. v. Keystone Publishing Co, 281 F 83 (CA2 1922).
183.
Davison (n 69) 144; Gervais (n 48) 78.
184.
Andre Lucas, Pascal Kamina & Robert Plaisant, ‘France’ in Paul Edward Geller and Melville B Nimmer (eds) International Copyright Law and Practice (Lexis Nexis 2009 volume 1) s 2[1][b].
185.
ibid, s 2 [1] [b].
186.
s 2[1] [b] [iii] [A]; Vivant (n 137) 74.
187.
Supra (n 161) and (n 178).
188.
ibid.
189.
Thomas K Dreier, ‘Authorship and New Technologies from the Viewpoint of Civil Law Tradition’ (1995) 26(6) IIC 990, 997–999.
190.
In the landmark Pachot decision the cour de cassation, said originality is an “intellectual input” (apport intellectual) and gave the opinion that protection may be refused if an “automated or constraining logic” dictates” and decides the input, Lucas & others (n 184) s 2[2]; The French approach, which was understandable with regards to writings, paintings and sculptures did not go well with utilitarian work. Thus, the modern test is a subset of the originality requirement that asks “what is it that an author does to show her personality through a work”, Elizabeth F Judge & Daniel Gervais, ‘Of silos and constellations: comparing notions of originality in copyright law’ in Robert F Brauneis, Intellectual Property Protection of Fact-based Works: Copyright and its Alternatives (Edward Elgar 2009) 79.
191.
Davison (n 69) 114.
192.
Lucas & others (n 184) s 2[3] [b].
193.
Over the years, protection has been granted to address books, schedule of prices and directory of medical laboratories because of creativity through selection or arrangement, Davison (n 69) 114; On the other hand, protection has been denied for compilations based on ‘sweat of the brow’ i.e. map of France indicating wine regions, Andre Lucas and Robert Plaisant, ‘France’ in Melville B Nimmer and Paul Edward Geller (eds) International Copyright Law and Practice (Matthew Bender, New York, 1999) in Davison (n 69) 114; CA Douai 7 October 1996 (Sté DDB Needham v. Cie des Courtiers Jurés Piqueurs de Vins de Paris), RIDA 1997/172, 286 in Davison (n 69) 114.
194.
Lucas & others (n 184) s 2[3] [b].
195.
“In theory, the standards of protection are quite high, but in fact, protection is often granted even in cases of weak creativity”, Vivant (n 137) 75.
196.
The criterion of originality for collections was revised from the initial standard in France. At the time of implementing TRIPS Agreement in 1996 the cumulative criterion requiring selection and arrangement was changed to selection or arrangement. Hence at the time of incorporating the Database Directive no additional changes were required, Beunen (n 125) 80; In the leading case of Microfor v Le Monde [1988] ECC 297, Microfor was involved in publishing an index consisting of titles of French newspaper articles. The compilation of Microfor was further subdivided into two parts. The first part ‘analytical’ consisted of alphabetic arrangement of articles with ‘descriptive’ key words, which was followed by a number referring to the chronological section. The second part, the chronological section consisted of the names of the periodicals where the articles were published. This selection or arrangement was considered to be original enough to confer copyright protection. In a different case, a published magazine consisting of a list of car manufacturers in the world was considered creative. The selection or arrangement was considered to be sufficiently creative in an ‘organization chart’ listing the names of their directors and managers, SARL v. SA Coprosa Cass. (1re civ., 2 May 1989) in Beunen (n 125) 81.
197.
[2005] ECDR 14; Collective agreements are “written and published agreements between certain parties, who are entitled by law to conclude these agreements, which have general and abstract provisions with binding impacts on the employment relationship”, Judge Michel Blatman, Conseiller, ‘Chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation, France, “Collective agreements” (International Labour Organisation, 24 September 2006) available at <http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---dialogue/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_159942.pdf> (accessed 30 November 2016).
198.
Editions Législatives (n 197) 153.
199.
Tribunal de commerce Paris 19 March 2004 in Beunen (n 125) 106–107.
200.
[2006] ECDR 15.
201.
ibid; However, Artprice was entitled for the protection under database right as the producer incurred substantial investment in the production of such database. Accordingly, Artprice has the right to prohibit extraction/re-utilizations of permanent or temporary transfer of the contents of the website to a different medium.
202.
Credinfor (n 200) 203.
203.
Groupe Moniteur and others v. Observatoire des Marchés Publics, Cour d’appel de Paris 18 June 1999, [2000] 183 RIDA 316 in P. Bernt. Hugenholtz, ‘The New Database Right: Early Case Law from Europe’, Int’l Intell. Prop. L. & Pol’y 70-1, 70-14 (2002); There were similar cases where copyright protection was refused: SARL News Invest v. SA PR Line Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel) Versailles, 11 April 2002–published press releases of the companies enlisted in the stock exchange; La sociéte Sonacotra v. le syndicat Sud Sonacotra District Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) Paris, 25 April 2003–a database of a company consisting of email addresses of employees.
204.
Editions Législatives (n 197) and Credinfor (n 200).
205.
Societe (n 199).
206.
Credinfor (n 200).
207.
“The work must feature a minimum level of individuality and creativity beyond that of average well-skilled and the trained person in the area (Kleine Munze)”, Christian Hertz-Eichenrode, Germany in Dennis Campbell(ed) World Intellectual property rights and remedies (Oceana New York 2011) 23 while referring to the Federal Supreme Court’s decision at [305] Buromobel programm, and GRUR (1983), 377, Brombeermuster; Article 4 of the German Copyright Act, states that selection or arrangement constitutes a personal intellectual creation, ‘Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG)’ (Translated by WIPO, 8 May 1998) available at <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm> (accessed 15 March 2011) translated by WIPO, (accessed 15 March 2011); In words of Lewinski selection or arrangement must fulfil the requirement of personal intellectual creation, Silke Von Lewinski, ‘Protection of and vis-à-vis Databases: Germany’ in Marcel Dellebeke (ed), Copyright in Cyberspace: Copyright and the Global Information Infrastructure (Otto Cramwinckel, Amsterdam, 1997) 480; Owing to the harmonization of ‘work’ constituting of ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ at the EU level, for example in case of computer programs, the standard of originality requires low creativity, Gerhard Schricker, ‘Farewell to the “level of creativity” (Schopfungshohe) in German Copyright Law?’ (1995) 26(1) IIC 41.
208.
Copyright Act, section 2, paragraph 1, numbers 1-7, ‘Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG)’ (Translated by WIPO, 8 May 1998) <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm> (accessed 15 March 2011).
209.
Adolf Dietz, ‘Germany’ in Paul Edward Geller and Melville B Nimmer (eds) International Copyright Law and Practice (Sweet & Maxwell 2009) sec 2[1][b].
210.
In Germany there is a copyright protection available, which does not need creativity but depends on the time and effort expended. It is called Kleine Munze (a small change), Bernt Hugenholtz, ‘Protection of Compilations of facts in Germany and the Netherlands’ in Bernt Hugenholtz & Egbert J Dommering (eds) Protecting Works of Fact: Copyright, Freedom of Expression and Information Law (Kluwer Tax and Law Publishers 1991) 62.
211.
Monumenta Germaniae Historica BGH-IZR 157/77 – December 7, 1979, BGH- IZR 95/79 June 12, 1981 and BGH-IZR 106/78 November 21, 1980 in Vincent Porter, ‘The Copyright protection of compilations and pseudo-literary works in EC member states’ (1993) Journal of Business Law 22.
212.
Monumenta Germaniae Historica BGH-IZR 157/77 – December 7, 1979 in Vincent Porter, ‘The Copyright protection of compilations and pseudo-literary works in EC member states’ (1993) Journal of Business Law 22.
213.
BGH-IZR 95/79 June 12, 1981 in Vincent Porter, ‘The Copyright protection of compilations and pseudo-literary works in EC member states’ (1993) Journal of Business Law 22.
214.
BGH-IZR 106/78 November 21, 1980, in Vincent Porter, ‘The Copyright protection of compilations and pseudo-literary works in EC member states’ (1993) Journal of Business Law 22.
215.
Monumenta (n 212); BGH- IZR 95/79 June 12, 1981; BGH-IZR 106/78 November 21, 1980, in Vincent Porter, ‘The Copyright protection of compilations and pseudo-literary works in EC member states’ (1993) January (22) Journal of Business Law 1.
216.
Copyright Act, 1965, s4 ‘Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG)’ (Translated by WIPO, 8 May 1998) available <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm> (accessed 15 March 2011).
217.
[2002] ECDR 3.
218.
Dietz (n 209).
219.
ibid.
220.
(Bundesgerichtshof (Tele-Info-CD) (I ZR 199/96) (Unreported, May 6, 1999) (Ger), in Mathias Leistner, ‘The legal protection of telephone directories relating to the new database maker’s right’ (2000) 31(7/8) IIC 950.
221.
ibid.
222.
Supra (n 220).
223.
ibid.
224.
Case C-304/07 Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg [2008] ECR I-7565.
225.
ibid.
226.
Bundesgerischtshof (German Federal Supreme Court) 24 May 2007 in the case of Directmedia Publishing and Albert- Ludwigs- Universitat-Freiburg in Dietz (n 209) sec 2[1][b]; This case also involved a question of extraction under the database right, which was referred to the ECJ. The ECJ considered that there was a case of database infringement in the context of extraction, Directmedia Publishing GmbH (n 224); Anne Christopher and Kate Freeman, ‘Case comment: Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg (Case C-304/07)’ (2009) 31(3) EIPR 151.
227.
Leistner (n 220).
228.
ibid.
229.
ibid.
230.
Supra section 5.3.
231.
ibid.
232.
[2011] EWCA Civ 330, [2011] 1 WLR 3044.
233.
This follows the argument taken in the first draft proposal that in useful comprehensive databases there would be less selection, COM (92) 24 final, 17.
234.
[2011] EWCA Civ 330, [2011] 1 WLR 3044.
235.
Citing two cases, Newspaper Licensing Agency, Ltd. v Marks & Spencer, plc, [2001] UKHL 38, [2013] 1 AC 551and Designers Guild Ltd. v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd. [2000] 1 WLR 2416 it has been argued that in the UK, ““original skill and labour” cannot have the same meaning as “skill and labour.””. It symbolizes creativity-based test. Even the inclusion of originality in the statute has some bearing and logically, it is more than skill and labour; Gervais (n 48) 49.
236.
Editions Législatives (n 197).
237.
In Editions Législatives, the dictionary was not considered something, which only portrays collection of information available in the public domain.
238.
It has been questioned that “when one selects, does it mean keeping 30%, 60%, 90% or …99% of the source?”, Vivant (n 137) 78.
239.
Such criticism has been forwarded by scholars, Beunen (n 125) 83.
240.
Credinfor (n 200).
241.
Credinfor (n 200) 205.
242.
Although the actual requirement is not given, the aforementioned options could provide the required originality going by the previous decisions.
243.
This has been somewhat depicted in Telephone Directories (n 217), and in contrast with the Monumenta Germaniae Historica BGH-IZR 157/77 – December 7, 1979 case where the arrangement was found to be sufficient.
244.
Telephone Directories (n 217).
245.
Similar to the Feist case, the German courts are inclined to keep scientific knowledge in the public domain, case involving a degree thesis for biology BGH-IZR 106/78 November 21, 1980.
246.
This collection of poems, although useful cannot be referred to as a comprehensive database, COM (92) 24 final, 17.
247.
Following this process would have likely stopped the database from receiving copyright protection, Supra section 5.3.
248.
Editions Législatives (n 197).
249.
[2011] EWCA Civ 330, [2011] 1 WLR 3044.
250.
Football Dataco (n 9).
251.
Supra (n 184).
252.
Similar suggestions were made in the Feist decision, Feist Publications (n 77).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Indranath Gupta

Authors

Indranath Gupta
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Indranath Gupta .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gupta, I. (2017). Threshold of Author’s Own Intellectual Creation. In: Footprints of Feist in European Database Directive. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3981-2_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3981-2_5
Published: 24 May 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3980-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3981-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics