Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405
Roberto <roberto@zenvoid.org> writes:
> 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.
The directive is about database protection, not (only) about
copyright. It mainly shows *two* independent possibilities how database
are protectable:
1. Copyright protection: By accounting the creativity to produce the
database; this is article 3, and this is done by applying a
copyright. The article actually *limits* the reasons why a database can
be copyright protected, by specifying an exhaustive list (selection and
arrangement). Every database that does not follow this rules is not
copyright protected according to the directive.
2. "Sui Generis Right": By accounting the investment to create the
database. The directive allows (resp. requests from the EU countries to
allow) to protect this investment. This protection is however *not*
copyright protection. A database that was created with substantial
investment but without creativity in selection or arrangement is still
not protected by copyright, even when the maker decides to protect it
under article 7.
> 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.
No. Article 3 is very clear about for which reasons a database is
copyrigh protectable. The phrase
| No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for
| that protection.
is there for a reason. Also, the article 7 is not in Chapter II
"Copyright", but in Chapter III "Sui Generis Right". In this article,
they very carefully did not use the words "author" or "creator", but
"maker" of a database.
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: