Case law

Information on case law as it specifically relates to geodata. (See also: Statute law.)

Contents 1 General 2 European Union 2.1 United Kingdom 2.2 The Netherlands 3 United States 4 Australia 5 Scandinavia 5.1 Iceland

General

Onsrud & Lopez, "Intellectual Property Rights in Disseminating Digital Copyright Data", is a rare detailed treatment of issues in EU and US case and statute law. See also Onsrud's later Geographic Information Legal Issues.

European Union

A good summary of database right case law is here.

• University of Freiburg vs Directmedia Publishing
  • Suggests that an infringement can be made even if the database is copied indirectly (e.g. transcribing from a map, not just downloading the original db)
  • Ruling: [1]
  • Summary: [2]

United Kingdom

• British Horseracing Board Ltd vs William Hill (2001 and subsequent)
  • Definitive case on database right.
  • Analysis: [3], [4], [5], [6]
  • Google for lots more.
• Designer Guild Ltd vs Russell Williams Textiles Ltd (2002)"'
  • Discusses 'substantial part' of a copyrighted work, and originality.
  • Analysis: [7]

The Netherlands

• Landmark Nederland Secures Right of Use for Public Data [8]

United States

• Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc
  • Pivotal Supreme Court judgement that facts cannot be copyrighted, nor can mere compilations of those facts. Extinguished the concept of "sweat of the brow" alone meriting protection.
  • Analysis: [9], [10]
• Sparaco vs. Lawler, Matusky et. al
  • Analysis: [11]
• Stone v Pinon
  • Analysis: [12]
• Mason v Montgomery Data
  • Judgement: [13]
  • Appears to draw a distinction between factual geodata (cannot be copyrighted) and cartographic "expression" (can be copyrighted)
• A round-up of US Map Copyright Litigation, 1789-1998

Australia

An earlier case (Telstra Corporation vs Desktop Marketing Systems, 2002) followed the sweat-of-the-brow test familiar in the UK.

However, two recent rulings have largely overturned this, and asserted a creativity/originality/intellectual effort test in order for copyright to subsist. The situation in Australia is now much closer to the US (Feist vs Rural).

• IceTV vs Nine Network (2009)
  • Ruling: [14]
  • Summary: [15]
  • "there is no infringement where the defendant has only extracted and reproduced unoriginal facts"

• Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd (2010)
  • Ruling: [16]
  • "They must have done something, howsoever defined, that can be considered original" - copyright protection requires "independent intellectual effort and/or sufficient effort of a literary nature"
  • Assembling the compilation according to a set of "Rules" is not sufficient effort: "There is no independent effort, let alone such effort being intellectual. There is no effort, let alone sufficient effort, of a literary nature. I reject the Applicants’ contention that there is judgment or discretion used in selecting the material for inclusion."
  • Largely supersedes 2002 case (Telstra vs Desktop Marketing Systems) which restated UK-style sweat-of-the-brow
  • Summary: [17] , [18]
  • "The decision further reinforces the view of the High Court in the IceTV Case that copyright is not the appropriate means of protecting compilations or databases if they are not original works, regardless of the significant expense or labour involved"

Scandinavia

The intellectual property laws across Scandinavia have a lot in common. Even Norway and Iceland have implemented the relevant EU directives.

Iceland

Mál og menning Ltd. vs the National Land Survey of Iceland (Landmælingar Íslands) 2002 (English translation)