In the age of information technology, the sale of information in the form of searchable databases has become a multibillion-dollar industry. In the United States, compilations of data have always presented a difficult problem: Although such works are often assembled at considerable cost and are extremely valuable to commerce and science, they do not exhibit the modicum of creativity usually required for copyrightability. In stark contrast, the European Union has set a global agenda by putting into effect a new form of intellectual property protection for databases, the terms of which could significantly affect the interests of database producers and consumers throughout the world. This article provides a summary of U.S. and international laws used to protect databases and describes the pressures that are affecting U.S. alternatives. Because both information and technology are now subject to porous international boundaries, the authors propose a change in U.S. law.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acorn Structures, Inc. v. Swantz (1988), 846 F.2d 923 (4th Circuit).
2.
American Movie Classics Company v. Turner Entertainment Company (1996), 922 F.Supp. 926 (S.D. New York).
3.
Amplex Manufacturing Company v. ABC Plastic Fabricators, Inc. (1960), 184 F.Supp. 285 (E.D. Pennsylvania).
4.
Association of Research Libraries (1997), “European Union Database Directive Sets Dangerous Precedent for Librarians,” (accessed March 3, 2003), [available at http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/iff1.html].
5.
Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation v. Donnelly Information Publishing, Inc. (1993), 999 F.2d 1436 (11th Circuit en banc).
BesekJune (1999), “Symposium: The End of Public Domain or a Necessary Step to the Future: Protecting Databases in a Post-Feist World,”Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, (accessed March 3, 2003), [available at http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/aelj/Articles/pubdom.htm].
8.
BraunsteinYale M. (2002), “Economic Impact of Database Protection in Developing Countries and Countries in Transition,” World Intellectual Property Organization, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, Seventh Session, SCCR/7/2 (April 4).
9.
British Horseracing Board Ltd. v. William Hill Organization Ltd. (2001), 151 NLJ 271, Chancery Division (February 9).
10.
British Horseracing Board Ltd. v. William Hill Organization Ltd. (2002), Case C-203/02 (2002/C180/23), Official Journal of the European Communities, 45(July 27), C 180/14.
11.
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony (1884), 111 U.S. 53.
12.
Committee on Data for Science and Technology (2002), “Scientific Access to Data and Information,” (accessed October 8, 2002), [available at http://www.codata.org/data_access/index.html].
13.
CovottaBrian, and SergeeffPamela (1998), “Intellectual Property: A Copyright: 1. Preemption: b) Contract Enforceability: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,”Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 13, 35–54.
14.
Dagbladen v. Eureka Internetdiensten (2000), District Court in Rotterdam, 139609/KG ZA 00-846 (August 22).
15.
DanielDianne (2001), “The Big House That Information Built,”Computing Canada, 27(12), 13.
16.
Data General Corporation v. Gumman Systems Support Corporation (1992), 795 F.Supp 501 (D. Massachusetts).
17.
Department of Commerce (2000), “Information Services, Chapter 26,” in U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook 2000.Washington, DC: National Technical Information Service.
18.
EBay v. Bidder's Edge, Inc. (2000), 100 F.Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. California).
19.
EC Council (1996), “Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the Legal Protection of Databases,”Official Journal of the European Communities, (March 27, L 77), 20.
El-KassasSherif (2002), “Study on the Protection of Unoriginal Databases,” World Intellectual Property Organization, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, Seventh Session, SCCR/7/3 (April 4).
22.
European Commission (1999), “Sixteenth Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (1998),”Official Journal of the European Communities, (December 7), 0001.
23.
European Commission (2001), “Eighteenth Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (2000),”Official Journal of the European Communities, 1(July 16), 0001.
24.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company (1991), 499 U.S. 340.
25.
F.E.L. Publications, Ltd. v. National Conference of Catholic Bishops (1978), 466 F.Supp. 1034 (N.D. Illinois).
26.
Financial Information Inc. v. Moody's Investors Service (1986), 808 F.2d 204 (2nd Circuit).
27.
Fixtures Marketing Limited v. AB Svenska Spel (2002), Case C 338/02, Official Journal of the European Communities, (September 11), C274/23–C/274/24.
28.
FrenoMichael (2001), “Database Protection: Resolving the U.S. Database Dilemma with an Eye Toward International Protection,”Cornell International Law Journal, 34, 165–225.
29.
GrusdBrandon L. (1997), “Contracting Beyond Copyright: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,”Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 10, 353–67.
30.
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985), 471 U.S. 539.
31.
Hutchinson Telephone Company v. Fronteer Directory Company (1985), 770 F.2d 128 (8th Circuit).
32.
Illinois Bell Telephone Company v. Haines & Company (1990), 905 F.2d 1081 (7th Circuit).
33.
Jewelers Circular Publishing Company v. Keystone Publishing Company (1922), 281 F. 83 (2nd Circuit).
34.
KarjalaDennis S. (1997), “Copyright Owners’ Rights and Users’ Privileges on the Internet: Federal Preemption of Shrinkwrap Licenses,”Dayton Law Review, 22(Spring), 511–45.
35.
Kewannee Oil Company v. Bicron Corporation (1974), 416 U.S. 470.
36.
Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises (1991), 945 F.2d 509 (2nd Circuit).
37.
Kregos v. Associated Press (1991), 937 F.2d 700 (2nd Circuit).
38.
LangenderferJeff, and CookDon Lloyd (2001), “Copyright Policies and Issues Raised by A & M Records v. Napster: ‘The Shot Heard Round the World’ or ‘Not with a Bang but a Whimper?’”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(Fall), 280–88.
LoveJames (1996), “A Primer on the Proposed WIPO Treaty on Database Extraction Rights That Will Be Considered in December 1996,”Information Policy Notes, (October 29), (accessed March 3, 2003), [available at http://www.cptech.org/ip/cpt-dbcom.html].
41.
Mainpost v. NewsClub (2002), Munich Upper Court (Germany).
42.
Martindale-Hubbell, Inc. v. Dunhill International List Company, Inc. (1994), No. 88-6767-Civ-Roettger (S.D. Florida).
43.
Matthew Bender & Company v. Jurisline.com (2000), 91 F.Supp. 2d 677 (S.D. New York).
44.
Matthew Bender & Company v. West Publishing Company (1998), 158 F.3d 693 (2nd Circuit).
45.
MilgrimRoger M. (2001), Milgrim on Trade Secrets.New York: Matthew Bender & Co.
46.
MosesJonathan M. (1991), “Law: Publishers Move to Prevent Directories from Becoming Open Books for Rivals,”The Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition, (December 27), B1.
47.
Nash v. CBS, Inc. (1990), 899 F.2d 1537 (7th Circuit).
48.
National Basketball Association v. Motorola (1997), 105 F.3d 841 (2nd Circuit).
49.
National Car Rental Systems, Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc. (1993), 991 F.2d 426 (8th Circuit).
50.
NelsonRussell G. (1999), “Recent Development, Seeking Refuge from a Technology Storm: The Current Status of Database Protection Legislation After the Sinking of the Collections of Information Anti-Piracy Act and the Second Circuit Affirmation of Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co.,”Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 6(Spring), 453–80.
51.
NimmerMelville B., and NimmerDavid (2000), Nimmer on Copyright.New York: Mathew Bender & Company.
52.
ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996a), 908 F.Supp. 640 (W.D. Wisconsin).
53.
ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996b), 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Circuit).
54.
Radio Telefis Eirann and Independent Television Publications Ltd. v. Commission of the European Communities supported by Magill TV Guide Ltd (1995), Judgment of 6.4.95 in Joined Cases C-241/91 P. and C-242/91 P., Court of Justice of the European Communities.
55.
ReichmanJ.H., and UhlirPaul F. (1999), “Database Protection at the Crossroads: Recent Developments and Their Impact on Science and Technology,”Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14(Spring), 793–838.
56.
ReilingRon (1997), “Intellectual Property Regimes for the Information Age: Policies of the United States, the European Union and the World Intellectual Property Organization,”Boston University Journal of Science and Technology, 3, 9.
57.
RiisThomas (2002), “Economic Impact of the Protection Unoriginal Databases in Developing Countries and Countries in Transition,” World Intellectual Property Organization, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, Seventh Session, SCCR/7/4 (April 4).
58.
Rural Telephone Service Company v. Feist Publications, Inc. (1987), 663 F.Supp. 214 (D. Kansas).
59.
Rural Telephone Service Company v. Feist Publications, Inc. (1990), 916 F.2d 718 (10th Circuit).
60.
Sargent v. American Greetings Corporation (1984), 588 F.Supp. 912 (N.D. Ohio).
61.
Schroeder v. William Morrow & Company (1977), 566 F.2d 3 (7th Circuit).
62.
Skinder-Strauss Associates v. Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (1995), 914 F.Supp. 665 (D. Massachusetts).
63.
Smith v. Weinstein (1984), 578 F.Supp. 1297 (S.D.N.Y.).
64.
SnoddyRaymond (1997), “Reed-Elsevier Shares Drop on U.S. Legal Ruling,”Financial Times, (May 23), 24.
65.
Stepstone v. Ofir Deutchland (2001), 28 O 692/00 Langericht Köln.
66.
SugarmanAlan D. (1996), “Database Protection: Tilting the Copyright Balance, Distorting the Market in Government Information,” (accessed July 12, 2002), [available at http://www.Hyperlaw.com/dbprot1.htm].
TaylorMike (2002), “Bookmakers Get More Time in Copyright Case,”Racing Post, (March 2), 19.
69.
Tele-Direct Publications, Inc. v. American Business Information, Inc. (1996), FCTD 74 CPR (3d) 72.
70.
Tele-Direct Publications, Inc. v. American Business Information, Inc. (1997), FCA 76 CPR (3d) 296.
71.
Toksvig v. Bruce Publishing Company (1950), 181 F.2d 664 (7th Circuit).
72.
TolmanBrett L. (1998), “ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg: The End Does Not Justify the Means in Federal Copyright Analysis,”Brigham Young University Law Review, 303–35.
U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Annual Survey, Table 3.1.4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, (accessed March 3, 2002), [available at http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/sas511.pdf].
77.
U.S. Copyright Office (1997), Report on Legal Protection for Databases.Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office.
78.
Warner Brothers, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1983), 720 F.2d 231, 247 (2nd Circuit).
79.
Warren Publishing, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corporation (1997), 115 F.3d 1509 (11th Circuit en banc).
80.
West Publishing (1979), Black's Law Dictionary, BlackHenry Campbell, NolanJoseph R., and ConnollyM.J., eds. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
81.
West Publishing Company v. Lawyer's Cooperative Publishing Company (1897), 79 F. 756 (2nd Circuit).
82.
Wharton v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (1995), 907 F.Supp. 144 (D. Md.).
83.
WIPO Secretariat (2002), “Draft Agenda,” World Intellectual Property Organization, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, Eighth Session, SCCR/8/1 (August 15).
84.
Wolff v. Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1991), 768 F.Supp. 766 (S.D. New York).
85.
ZuckermanMortimer B. (1999), “The Times of Our Lives,”U.S. News & World Report, 127(25), 68–70.
