Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
Roberto <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
This is not copyright, which is handled in Chapter II. Article 3:
| 1. In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of
| the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the
| author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by
| copyright. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their
| eligibility for that protection.
This is exhaustive ("no other criteria...").
I read that article 7 that you cited as: the maker of a database has the
right to protect it -- which however needs him to be active (which is
not the case for the JPL).