[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 02:03:44PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Sure; law is always open to be interpreted by the court. This is
> generally true and not specific to this case.

Yes but, what I want to say is that, in this particular case, I don't
think it's safe to assume that a collection of facts can't have
copyright, not even when it's entries are selected by objective
criteria. Let's quote the Directive No. 96/9/EC:

  Article 7
  Object of protection

  Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database
  which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a
  substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or
  presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization
  of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or
  quantitatively, of the contents of that database.


Notice that database creators can argue that they have made a
"substantian investment in verifying the contents" to justify their
database protection. It's not needed to have made an effort in manually
selecting entries (yes, that's another way to have a database protected,
but not the only one). I'm worried that this is not taken seriously
because it has been used plenty of times already, and the way the
directive is written is quite biased toward creators of databases as far
as I can tell in my opinion. The only exceptions given are those in the
Article 6, in short: for private, scientific research, or non-commercial

Reply to: