The first evaluation report and question of incentive
2.2 Structure of protection: perspective of producers
2.3 Two-tier structure of Database Directive
2.4 Feist decision as an argument for protection of databases
Requirement of copyright protection
Sweat of the brow and electronic databases
Adverse effect
3.0 Feist Jurisprudence in US
3.1 Feist guidelines
Originality and the US Constitution
The threshold for protecting compilations
3.2 Feist and existing law
Principles in previous cases
The idea of originality
3.3 Registration of compilations subsequent to Feist
Process of registration
Adopted measures
3.4 Cases following Feist
Threshold of protection
Amount of consistency
4.0 Impact of Feist in the US
4.1 ‘Sweat of the brow’ as an incentive for database production
Extent of impact on producers
Use of technical measures
4.2 Five years after Feist
4.3 Rate of investment
Investment towards databases
Electronic publishing
Non-electronic databases
Effective business policy and utility of legislation
4.4 US database debate and Feist decision
EU influence
The debate at the WIPO
Effect of Warren Publishing and Mathew Bender
5.0 Feist’s threshold and Author’s Own Intellectual Creation
5.1 Football Dataco case in England
Selection process adopted
The threshold of creativity
<5.2 CJEU observation in Football Dataco
Creativity in data creation
Creativity and single-sourced database
Agreement with threshold adopted in England
5.3 Member States’ interpretation of Article 3
Convergence to a uniform AOIC threshold
Modicum of creativity
6.0 Feist Jurisprudence in Database Directive
6.1 Resemblance of Feist standard
Minimum creativity and a second comer
Pre-existing work, use of computer and sweat of the brow
Application of quantitative factor
6.2 Influence of Feist in AOIC
Green Paper to first draft proposal: from Berne to Feist
Accepted norm
Threshold over the years
6.3 Positive effect of Feist
Incentive for future database producers
Removal of sweat of the brow for copyright protection of databases
Copyright chapter separated from Database Right
Factual contents and monopoly
6.4 Non-electronic databases under Article 3
Unique arrangement in competitive situation
Selected information and market demand
Securing investments towards contents
6.5 Experiments with Database Right
7.0 Uncertainties with database right: Negative Interpretation of Feist
7.1 Requirement in the draft proposal
Limited protection to producers
Limited incentive for electronic databases
7.2 Imbalance and complexities in the enactment
Threshold of substantial investment uncertain
Limited exceptions
Uncertain term of protection
7.3 Single-sourced databases under the Directive
Investment barrier and Dataco decision
Monopoly over factual content
Database Right extra layer of protection
8.0 Conclusion
Bibliography
Indranath Gupta is an associate professor and assistant director of the Centre for Post Graduate Legal Studies and& Assistant Director at the Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law. Dr. Gupta received his LL.B. degree from the University of Calcutta, India, and holds an LL.M. with distinction from the University of Aberdeen, UK and a postgraduate research LL.M. in Computer Law from the University of East Anglia, UK. He obtained his Ph.D from Brunel University, London, UK.
Dr. Gupta has been involved in qualitative and quantitative research. He was appointed as the research collaborator by the Università Bocconi, Milan, Italy, for a project funded by the European Commission under the 7th framework programme. He has also been appointed as a research assistant for a project relating to data protection compliance level at Brunel University, London. Dr. Gupta has also worked as an advocate in a solicitors’ firm at the Calcutta High Court. He has published in European and Indian Law journals and has spoken at international conferences and seminars. His research areas include database right, copyright, data protection, cyber law and interface of IP and Competition Law.
Connected to the jurisprudence surrounding the copyrightability of a factual compilation, this book locates the footprints of the standard envisaged in a US Supreme court decision (Feist) in Europe. In particular, it observes the extent of similarity of such jurisprudence to the standard adopted and deliberated in the European Union. Many a times the reasons behind law making goes unnoticed. The compelling situations and the history existing prior to an enactment helps in understanding the balance that exists in a particular legislation. While looking at the process of enacting the Database Directive (96/9/EC), this book reflects upon the concern that was expressed with the outcome of Feist decision in Europe.