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

Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 01:47:51PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Your other argument (with article 7) has nothing do do with copyright:
> even when this article applies to a database, it is still not
> (necessarily) copyright protected. Article 7 just claims that the maker
> of a database *may* protect his work; but as long as he does not do
> this, there are no restrictions. This is the opposite to copyright,
> where the default is restrictive and the copyright owner may grant you
> rights. And it also is possible only for 15 years.

I'm not sure if I'm not understanding what you mean correctly. The
Directive is not a modification to copyright, but EU member countries
modify their copyright laws to include those protections.

Each country have its local laws. In Spain, the copyright law it's not
even called "copyright", it is called the LPI, but the word "Copyright"
is still recognised for compatibility with the Berne Convention. The
declaration has many differencies with the US definition of copyright,
for example, definition of "fair use" is not compatible, the "public
domain" concept doen't even exist (though it is usually considered safe
to import and use public domain works from countries which do define
it), and thousands of other differences. So, it's easier to refer to the
text of the Directive directly rather than to individual copyright
declarations for each country under their own legal jurisdiction. I
think that's what is confusing you into thinking that it is nothing to
do with Copyright (or maybe I'm not understanding your point, I'm not
sure). I hope it's more clear now.

The modification of Spanish copyright declaration was published on
"BOE", which is the official document that informs about those changes.
It was recorded in BOE-A-1998-5568, it's in Spanish but if you feel
interested you can search it online at http://www.boe.es/ and translate
it (hopefully the translator don't mess too much with it, law articles
are writen in a very specific form). All requirements of the database
directive has been included into the Spanish copyright law. So well, I
don't understand why you say that it has nothing to do with copyright,
sure it does.

If you read the Spanish LPI with its modifications, you'll see that a
database or collection of things can now be copyrighted (and actually it
is automatically copyrighted and protected like any other work). The
copyright law is extended so it includes all those provisions required
by the database directive, including the protection of collections of
works that are factual, non-artistic, non-creative, when the creator of
the colletion has invested time and/or effort in the validation process,
etc... I personally think that the choosen wording provides even more
than required by the database directive, which makes easier to claim
copyright for trivial things wrapped into databases, unfortunately. Yes,
there had been opposition, specially at first, but time has passed and
the modified copyright law is still being used (and abused).

It seems that you don't believe me when I say that I've seen databases
of trivial things beign enforced, and that's fine, not trusting random
persons over the Internet is OK. Writing in English takes a long time
for me so please excuse me if I don't continue to explain how copyright
works in my country. If you want to research and see it by yourself, you
are welcome.

Reply to: