Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Feist in the US Database Market

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Footprints of Feist in European Database Directive

  • 267 Accesses

Abstract

The explanatory memorandum to the First proposal of the European Database Directive contemplated the ‘gap’ that Feist was likely to create, since ‘sweat of the brow’ as a reason to provide copyright protection to compilations was removed. It was believed that such removal would result in less incentive for producers engaged in the production of databases. This chapter observes this concern as expressed in the explanatory memorandum in the background of the US database market where the sui generis database right is not present. It concludes on a note that ‘sweat of the brow’ had a questionable role in incentivizing database production. There was less uncertainty with Feist decision and investment continued to flow towards production of electronic databases. Further, the prolonged database debate in US did not result from Feist. The debate resulted largely because of other factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of databases’ COM (92) 24 final (COM (92) 24 final), para [2.3.3].

  2. 2.

    ibid, para [3.1.9].

  3. 3.

    Infra section 4.1.

  4. 4.

    Infra section 4.3.

  5. 5.

    Infra section 4.4.

  6. 6.

    W Mathew Wayman, ‘International Database Protection: A multilateral Treaty solution to the United States’ Database Dilemma’ (1996–97) 37(2) Santa Clara L Rev 427, 431 and Baila Celedonia, ‘From copyright to copycat: Open season on data?’, Publishers Weekly Aug 16 1991, 34; Neeta Thakur, ‘Database protection in the European Union and the United States: the European Database Directive as an optimum global model’ (2001) 1 IPQ 100, 104.

  7. 7.

    Jane C Ginsburg, ‘Copyright, Common Law and sui generis protection of databases in the United States and Abroad’ (1997–1998) 66(1) U Cin L Rev 151, 151; Cynthia M Bott, ‘Protection of Information Products: Balancing Commercial Reality and the Public Domain’ (1998–99) 67(1) U Cin L Rev 237, 246.

  8. 8.

    Martha E. Williams, ‘The State of Databases Today: 2004’, Gale Directory of Databases 2004 1(1) in Robin Elizabeth Herr, Is the Sui Generis Right a Failed Experiment? A legal and Theoretical Exploration of How to Regulate Unoriginal Database Contents and Possible Suggestions for Reform (DJØF Publishing Copenhagen, Denmark 2008).

  9. 9.

    ibid; GDD was the same source referred to in first evaluation report concerning Database Directive.

  10. 10.

    Martha E. Williams, ‘The State of Databases Today: 2005’, Gale Directory of Databases 2005 in Herr (n 8).

  11. 11.

    ibid.

  12. 12.

    Estelle Derclaye, ‘Intellectual property rights on information and market power – comparing European and American protection of databases’ (2007) 38(3) IIC 275, 291.

  13. 13.

    Herr (n 8) 162.

  14. 14.

    ‘DG Internal market and services working paper: First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases’ (Commission of the European Communities, 12 December 2005) available at <http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/databases/evaluation_report_en.pdf> (accessed 31 October 2016) (First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC), para [4.4].

  15. 15.

    ‘Intellectual property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property rights’ (United States Patent and Trademark Office, 8 January 2007) available at <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/ipnii.pdf> (accessed 30 November 2016).

  16. 16.

    In spite of the hostile attitude of the 2nd and the 9th Circuits’ towards copyright protection to factual compilations (Fred L Worth v Selchow & Richter Co 827 F.2d 569 (9th Cir 1987) and Financial Info Inc. v Moody’s Investors Service 808 F. 2d 204 (2nd Cir 1986), “… an abundance of online databases was made available to customers in the states of New York and California”, Jessica Litman, ‘After Feist’ (1992) 17(2) U Dayton L Rev 607, 611.

  17. 17.

    First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC; In around year 2000 there were about 31 American companies engaged in the creation of informational databases in comparison to 6 European companies, Mortiner B Zuckerman, ‘The Times of Our Lives’ (1999) 127 U.S. News & World Report 68,70 in Daniel R Valente, Feist Overruled? Database Protection in the Next Century (2000) 17(7) The Computer Lawyer 20, 20.

  18. 18.

    Martha E. Williams, ‘The State of Databases Today: 2005’, Gale Directory of Databases 2005 in Herr (n 8) 162.

  19. 19.

    First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC, para [1.1].

  20. 20.

    Alfred Yen has suggested that the situation of free-riding is not as bad as it seems. “Some compilers will recover their development costs even if copyright is eliminated … Indeed, it is quite likely that the production of many creative compilations needs no further encouragement or that the production of many ordinary compilations requires additional incentives”, Alfred C Yen, ‘The legacy of Feist: Consequences of the weak connection between Copyright and the Economics of public goods’ (1991) 52(5) Ohio St L J 1343, 1374–1375; COM (92) 24 final, para [2.3.3].

  21. 21.

    Supra chapter 3 (n 140).

  22. 22.

    If we refer to the first draft proposal of the Database Directive, concern relating to the protection offered to electronic databases was highlighted throughout, COM (92) 24 final.

  23. 23.

    US Congress Office of Technology Assessment, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information’ (April 1986) available at <http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1986/8610/8610.PDF> (accessed 30 November 2016) 97.

  24. 24.

    ibid.

  25. 25.

    Supra section 4.1.

  26. 26.

    This is in agreement with the view of Jessica Litman. Litman (n 16) 611; Similar to the contention of Litman, Paul T Sheils and Robert Penchina have said that database publishers already had well settled licensing agreements in place through which the licensor could restrict the use of the information, including prohibition on the copying, redistribution and re-publication of information, Paul T Sheils and Robert Penchina, ‘What’s all the fuss about Feist? The sky is not falling on the intellectual property rights of online database proprietors’ (1991–1992) 17(2) U Dayton L Rev 563, 572.

  27. 27.

    ibid.

  28. 28.

    Litman (n 16) 611.

  29. 29.

    Derclaye (n 12) 197.

  30. 30.

    Kenneth W Dam, ‘Self-help in the digital jungle’ in Rochelle C Dreyfuss and others (eds), Expanding the boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (Oxford University Press, first published 2001) 104–111; Patrica Akester, ‘Survey of Technological Measures for protection of Copyright’ (2001) 12(1) Ent L Rev 36, 39; Similarly in the EU the 2001/29/EC Directive includes the anti-circumvention policies. In the UK, the EU Directive provisions are included in the CDPA of 1988 through sections 296-299.

  31. 31.

    Ejan Mackaay, ‘The Economics of Emergent Property Rights on the Internet’ in P Bernt Hugenholtz (ed), The future of Copyright in a Digital Environment (Kluwer Law International London 1996) 25.

  32. 32.

    Derclaye (n 12) 197.

  33. 33.

    Supra section 2.1.2.

  34. 34.

    COM (92) 24 final.

  35. 35.

    Council Directive of 1996/9/EC of 27 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases [1996] OJ L 77/20 (Council Directive 96/9/EC).

  36. 36.

    Cases subsequent to Feist suggested that the threshold can be easily met, supra sections 3.2 and 3.3.

  37. 37.

    This would be further analyzed in the next section in relation to the gap of five years after Feist.

  38. 38.

    Going by numbers argument, supra section 2.2.2.

  39. 39.

    Dennis S Karjala, ‘Misappropriation as a third Intellectual Property Paradigm’ (1994) 94(8) Colum L Rev 2594, 2596-2598; Michael Schwarz, ‘Copyright in compilations of facts: Case Comment’ (1991) 17(5) EIPR 178, 182.

  40. 40.

    Bruce Lehman ‘Intellectual Property and the National and Global Information Infrastructures’ in Egbert J Dommering and P Bernt Hugenholtz, The future of Copyright in a Digital environment (Kluwer Law International London 1996) 103.

  41. 41.

    Wade Lambert, ‘Yellow pages reuse is found not violate Copyright” (September 24, 1991) The Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition) New York, B1.

  42. 42.

    J Ryan Mitchell, ‘If at Feist You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try Again: An Evaluation of the Proposed Collections of Information Piracy Act’ (1999) 78(4) Neb L Review 901, 902.

  43. 43.

    Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook 1994, at 25-1 in Debra B Rosler, ‘The European Union’s proposed Directive for the legal protection of databases: A new threat to the free flow of information’ (1995) 10(1) High Tech L J 105, 133.

  44. 44.

    ibid.

  45. 45.

    Michael R Klipper and Meredith S Senter, The facts after Feist: The Supreme Court addresses the Issue of the Copyright ability of factual compilations in Jon A Baumgarten (ed) ‘Fact’ and Data Protection After Feist (Prentice Hall Law & Business, New Jersey 1991); In contrast early twentieth century onwards US database market dominance over UK in relation to database production was clearly evident, Gary Lea, ‘In defence of originality’ (1996) 7(1) Ent L Rev 21, 23.

  46. 46.

    ibid.

  47. 47.

    Klipper and Senter (n 45).

  48. 48.

    Philip H Miller, ‘Life after Feist: Facts, the First Amendment and the Copyright status of automated databases’ (1991-1992) 60(3) Fordham L Rev 507, 533-534.

  49. 49.

    Litman (n 16) 611.

  50. 50.

    ibid.

  51. 51.

    Steve Metalitz, ‘Feist and the Information Industry’ (June/July 1991) 17(5) Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 11–12.

  52. 52.

    David O Carson, ‘Copyright protection for factual compilations after Feist: A practioner’s view’ (1992) 17(3) U Dayton L Rev 969, 969-970.

  53. 53.

    Stanley Lai, ‘Recent Developments in Copyright, Database Protection and (On-line) licensing’ (1999) 7(1) Int’l J of L & Information Technology 73, 86-87.

  54. 54.

    Sheils and Penchina (n 26).

  55. 55.

    ibid.

  56. 56.

    US Copyright Office, ‘Report on Legal Protection For Databases: August 1997’; Miriam Bitton ‘A New Outlook on the Economic Dimension of the Database Protection Debate’ (2006-07) 47(2) IDEA Intell Prop L Rev 93, 96; “ Domestic threat of database exploitation poses the greatest risk to the US database industry”, Wayman (n 6) 466.

  57. 57.

    The lack of protection became especially apparent after the Supreme Court ruling in Feist”, Charles Brill, ‘Legal Protection of Collection of Facts’ (1998) 2 Computer L Rev & Tech 1, 59.

  58. 58.

    “In response, the industry has been working to push through Congress a database protection bill …” Russell G Nelson, ‘Seeking Refuge from a Technology Storm: The Current Status of Database Protection Legislation after the Sinking of the Collections of Information Anti-Piracy Act and the Second Circuit Affirmation of Matthew Bender & (and) Co. v. West Publishing Co. Recent Development’ (1998-99) 6(2) J Intell Prop L 453, 456.

  59. 59.

    ‘Intellectual property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property rights’ (United States Patent and Trademark Office, 8 January 2007) available at <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/ipnii.pdf/> (accessed 30 November 2016).

  60. 60.

    Klipper and Senter (n 45).

  61. 61.

    Supra section 3.2.

  62. 62.

    The Trade Mark Cases 100 US 82(1879) and Burrow-Giles Lithograph Co v Sarony 111 US 53 (1884), cases referred to in the Feist decision.

  63. 63.

    Supra section 4.1.

  64. 64.

    Supra section 3.2.

  65. 65.

    Elsevier is the world’s leading provider of scientific and medical information and serves scientists, health professionals and students worldwide. The Science & Technology business is the world’s leading science journal publisher, producing over 200,000 new research articles in some 1,100 journals every year, with Science Direct, its flagship electronic solution, accessed by over 11 million users, ‘Annual Report and Financial Statements 2008’ available at <http://www.relx.com/annualreport08/business/Pages/elsevier.aspx> (accessed 30 November 2016); Reed Elsevier was one of the chief proponents of database legislation in US. Other than Reed Elsevier, Thomson advanced their interests for database legislation. In fact, Reed Elsevier was seen as a company leading the debate on database legislation in US; Laura D’Andrea Tyson and Edward F. Sherry, ‘Statutory Protection for Databases: Economic and Public Policy Issues’, (unpublished report for the Information Industry Association, 1997); Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity (NYU Press 2003) 167; Patti Waldmeir, ‘Who should own the raw facts?: Database Legislation: Courts must balance the rights to private property and to public access’ Financial Times (London, 22 May 2002) 19; Mathew Swibel, ‘Defending the Database’ (31 March 2004) available at <http://www.forbes.com/2004/03/31/cz_ms_0331beltway.html> (accessed 3 January 2010).

  66. 66.

    Infra section 4.3.1.

  67. 67.

    Davison cited excerpts from some of these reports to comment about the strategies of publishers, Mark J Davison, The legal protection of databases (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2003), 261-263.

  68. 68.

    H.R. 191: American Consumers Healthcare Reform Act of 1993. This bill never became law.

  69. 69.

    ‘Reed Elsevier annual report 1993’ available at <http://www.reed-elsevier.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Pages/1992-2001.aspx> (accessed 10 December 2010) (Reed Elsevier annual report 1993).

  70. 70.

    ibid.

  71. 71.

    Davison (n 67) 261–263.

  72. 72.

    ibid.

  73. 73.

    ‘Reed Elsevier annual report 1992’ available at <http://www.reed-elsevier.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Pages/1992-2001.aspx> (accessed 10 December 2010). (Reed Elsevier annual report 1992).

  74. 74.

    ‘Reed Elsevier annual report 1993 (n 69).

  75. 75.

    ‘Reed Elsevier annual report 1994’ available at <http://www.reed-elsevier.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Pages/1992-2001.aspx> (accessed 10 December 2010). (Reed Elsevier Annual Report 1994).

  76. 76.

    ‘Reed Elsevier annual report 1995’ available at <http://www.reed-elsevier.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Pages/1992-2001.aspx> (accessed 10 December 2010). (Reed Elsevier annual report 1995).

  77. 77.

    ibid.

  78. 78.

    ibid.

  79. 79.

    ‘Reed Elsevier annual report 1996’ available at <http://www.reed-elsevier.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Pages/1992-2001.aspx> (accessed 10 December 2010).

  80. 80.

    There was prolonged debate relating to the idea of having a database right in US, Infra section 4.4.

  81. 81.

    Miriam Bitton, ‘Exploring the European Union Copyright Policy through the lens of the Database Directive’ (2008) 23(4) Berkeley Tech LJ 1411, 1424.

  82. 82.

    Supra section 4.1.

  83. 83.

    Reports spanning from 1993–1996.

  84. 84.

    Supra sections 4.1 and 4.2.

  85. 85.

    Reed Elsevier annual report 1993 (n 69).

  86. 86.

    Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service, 499 US 340 (1991).

  87. 87.

    Reed Elsevier Annual Report 1994 (n 75) 4 and 14.

  88. 88.

    Reed Elsevier annual report 1995 (n 76).

  89. 89.

    Supra section 4.3.

  90. 90.

    Feist Publications (n 86).

  91. 91.

    COM (92) 24 final.

  92. 92.

    Supra section 4.2.

  93. 93.

    Reed Elsevier annual report 1992 (n 73).

  94. 94.

    Supra section 3.3.

  95. 95.

    ‘Reed Elsevier annual report 1997’ available at <http://www.reed-elsevier.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Pages/1992-2001.aspx> (accessed 10 December 2010). (Reed Elsevier annual report 1997).

  96. 96.

    First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC, para [4.1.1].

  97. 97.

    William Patry, ‘The Enumerated Powers Doctrine and Intellectual Property: An Imminent Constitutional Collision’ (1999) 67(2) The Geor Wash L R 359, 386.

  98. 98.

    Reed Elsevier annual report 1997 (n 95).

  99. 99.

    Stephen M Maurer and Suzanne Scotchmer, ‘Database protection: Is it Broken and Should we fix it’ (1999) 284 Science, 1129–1130.

  100. 100.

    Stephen M Maurer, ‘Raw Knowledge: Protecting Technical databases for science and industry’ (14-15 January, 1999) available at <http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is296a-3/s99/database.pdf> (accessed 25 November 2010).

  101. 101.

    Raymond T Nimmer and Patricia A Krauthaus, ‘Information as Property Databases and Commercial Property’ (1993–94) 1(1) IJLIT 1.14; There are pitfall and effectiveness of adopting unfair competition to protect databases, Paula Baron, ‘Back to the future: Learning from the past in the Database Debate’ (2001) 62(2) Ohio St L J 1, 7.

  102. 102.

    Council Directive 96/9/EC.

  103. 103.

    Having said that there was the case of ProCD v Zeidenberg 86 F3d 1447(7th Cir 1996) involving copying of telephone directories off a CD ROM. Zeidenberg extracted the contents and released them on the internet at a lesser cost. For ProCD the cost of the compilation was extensive. The case was decided on the basis of a licensing clause in the CDROM.

  104. 104.

    Bitton (n 56) 132–133.

  105. 105.

    ibid.

  106. 106.

    David Fewer, ‘A Sui Generis Right to Data? A Canadian Position’ (1998) 30(2) Can Bus L J 165,180.

  107. 107.

    Davison (n 67) 261–263.

  108. 108.

    Bitton (n 56) 169.

  109. 109.

    Davison (n 67) 261-263.

  110. 110.

    COM (92) 24 final, para [3.1.9].

  111. 111.

    Supra section 4.3.2.

  112. 112.

    With reference to the interpretation of the Feist case through various decisions, supra chapter 3.

  113. 113.

    Interestingly the stakeholders in response to the suggestion of the sui generis database right in the Green Paper of the Commission, did not show any interest for the enactment of a special right and opted for database protection by copyright, George Metaxas, ‘Protection of databases: quietly steering in the wrong direction?’ (1990) 12(7) EIPR 227-228.

  114. 114.

    It is apparently temporary because fresh debate concerning database legislation in US started after 1996.

  115. 115.

    Supra section 4.1.2.

  116. 116.

    COM (92) 24 final.

  117. 117.

    Davison (n 67) 261-263.

  118. 118.

    ‘H.R. 2281 (used to be H.R. 2652): The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act’ available at <https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2652> (accessed 30 November 2016).

  119. 119.

    The figures according to the GDD were over 8000 databases in the year 2004, First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC, para [4.4].

  120. 120.

    The American database initiative started in 1996 in form of The Database Investment and Intellectual Property Antipiracy Act of 1996, House Bill 3531.

  121. 121.

    ‘H.R. 2281 (used to be H.R. 2652): The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act’ available at <https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2652> (accessed 30 November 2016); Jonathan Band, ‘Armageddon on the Potomac The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act’ (1999) D-Lib Magazine 5(1) available at <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/01band.html> (accessed November 2010).

  122. 122.

    Library of Congress: Bills, Resolutions available at <https://www.congress.gov/> (accessed 30 December 2016); Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act 2003 available at <https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/3261?q=H.R.+3261+%28108%29> (accessed 23 October 2016).

  123. 123.

    Supra section 4.2.

  124. 124.

    Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure (September, 1995) available at <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/> (accessed 10 November 2010).

  125. 125.

    While referring to the disparities, they were referring to the conflict of laws. “A user in France can access a database in the United States and have a copy downloaded to a computer in Sweden. Whose copyright law would apply to such a transaction? Because copyright laws are territorial, and the standards of protection embodied in the international conventions leave room for national legislative determinations, acts that may constitute infringement in one country may not be an infringement in another country.”, ‘Intellectual property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property rights’ (United States Patent and Trademark Office, 8 January 2007) available at <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/> (accessed 10 December 2009).

  126. 126.

    ibid, The paper, however, never described the Berne Protocol or the New Instrument; Wayman (n 6) 445.

  127. 127.

    Letter from Bruce Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks in Wayman (n 6).

  128. 128.

    ibid.

  129. 129.

    Pamela Samuelson, ‘The U.S. Digital agenda at the World Intellectual Property Organization’ (1998) available at <http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/courses/cyberlaw98/docs/wipo.pdf> (accessed 12 January 2011).

  130. 130.

    World Intellectual Property Organisation, ‘Basic Proposal for the Substantive Provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Databases to be Considered by the Diplomatic Conference’ (WIPO, 30 August 1996) available at <http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=2487> (accessed 10 December, 2010).

  131. 131.

    ibid.

  132. 132.

    The substantive clauses proposed were similar to the structure of the European Database Directive, World Intellectual Property Organisation ‘Proposal Submitted by the European Community and its Member States’ (WIPO, February 1996) available at <www.wipo.int/mdocsarchives/BCP_CE_VI_1996/BCP_CE_VI_13_E.pdf> (accessed 10 December, 2010); Wayman (n 6) 450–451.

  133. 133.

    ibid.

  134. 134.

    Samuelson (n 129).

  135. 135.

    Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions: Basic Proposal for the Substantive Provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in respect of Databases to be considered by the Diplomatic Conference (Geneva, December 2 to 20, 1996) available at <www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/diplconf/en/crnr_dc/crnr_dc_6.doc> (accessed 10 January 2010).

  136. 136.

    Information Meeting on Intellectual Property in Databases: Existing National and Regional Legislation concerning Intellectual Property in Databases (Geneva, September 17 to 19, 2010) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/db_im/db_im_2.pdf> (accessed 10 January 2010).

  137. 137.

    For instance, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: A Study on the Impact of Protection of Unoriginal Databases on Developing Countries: Indian experience (Geneva, may 13-17, 2002) available at <www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_7/sccr_7_5.pdf> (accessed 10 January 2010); Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (Geneva, June 23 to 27, 2003) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_9/sccr_9_11.pdf> (accessed 15 January, 2010); Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (Geneva, Nov 21 to 23, 2005) available at <www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_13/sccr_13_6.doc> (accessed 15 January 2010).

  138. 138.

    Davison (n 67) 231.

  139. 139.

    ibid 231–233.

  140. 140.

    ibid 234.

  141. 141.

    ibid 233–234.

  142. 142.

    ibid 233–234.

  143. 143.

    Annemarie Beunen, Protection for databases: The European Database Directive and its effects in Netherlands, France and United Kingdom (Wolf Legal Publishers Leiden 2007), 21–22.

  144. 144.

    The draft treaty was distributed amongst member countries in September 1996 for the December conference.

  145. 145.

    Information Meeting on Intellectual Property in Databases: Existing National and Regional Legislation concerning Intellectual Property in Databases (Geneva, September 17 to 19, 1997) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/db_im/db_im_2.pdf> (accessed 15 January 2010).

  146. 146.

    ibid.

  147. 147.

    Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (Thirteenth Session, Geneva, November 21 to 23, 2005) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_13/sccr_13_6.pdf> (accessed 15 January 2010) (SCCR 13(6), November 2005).

  148. 148.

    Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (Third Session, Geneva, November 16 to 20, 1999) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_3/sccr_3_11.pdf> (accessed 15 January, 2010) (SCCR 3(11), November 1999).

  149. 149.

    ibid.

  150. 150.

    For instance, ibid; SCCR 3(11), November 1999 (n 148).

  151. 151.

    Supra section 4.4.

  152. 152.

    Davison (n 67) 232.

  153. 153.

    Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: The Impact of Protection of Non-original Databases on the Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean ( Geneva, November 4 to 8, 2002) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_8/sccr_8_6.pdf> (accessed 20 January 2010); Five studies commissioned by the Secretariat at WIPO by the following experts in India, Egypt, US, China and Denmark, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (Geneva, May 13 to 17, 2002) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_7/sccr_7_10.pdf> (accessed 20 January 2010) (SCCR 7(10), May 2002).

  154. 154.

    ibid.

  155. 155.

    SCCR 13(6), November 2005 (n 147).

  156. 156.

    SCCR 7(10), May 2002 (n 153); Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights ( Geneva, November 4 to 8, 2002) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_8/sccr_8_9.pdf> (accessed 10 January 2010); Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (Geneva, June 23 to 27, 2003) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_9/sccr_9_11.pdf> (accessed 15 January 2010); Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (Geneva, June 7 to 9, 2004) available at <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_11/sccr_11_4.pdf> (accessed 10 January 2010).

  157. 157.

    ibid.

  158. 158.

    Database Investment and Intellectual Property Antipiracy Act of 1996, House Bill 3531.

  159. 159.

    Supra section 4.3.

  160. 160.

    Reed Elsevier Annual Reports, Supra section 4.3.

  161. 161.

    ibid.

  162. 162.

    Supra section 4.2.

  163. 163.

    Started with first proposal with the enactment of the Database Directive in 1996, COM (92) 24 final and Council Directive 96/9/EC.

  164. 164.

    Supra chapter 2.

  165. 165.

    Supra chapter 3.

  166. 166.

    Dov Greenbaum, ‘Are We Legislating Away Our Scientific Future? The Database Debate’, (2003) 2 Duke Law & Technology Review 1-15, available at <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dltr/vol2/iss1/20> (accessed 7 October 2010); Xuqiong Wu, ‘E.C. Data Base Directive’ (2002) 17 Berkeley Tech LJ 571, 572 available at <http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1368&context=btlj> (accessed 7 October, 2010).

  167. 167.

    Article 11, Council Directive 96/9/EC; Ewan J Nettleton and Harjinder S Obhi, ‘Can US Companies Protect their Databases in Europe with Database Right’ (2002) CW 121.

  168. 168.

    Supra section 4.4.1.

  169. 169.

    ibid.

  170. 170.

    Supra section 4.2.

  171. 171.

    Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions: Basic Proposal for the Substantive Provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in respect of Databases to be considered by the Diplomatic Conference (Geneva, December 2 to 20, 1996) available at <www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/diplconf/en/crnr_dc/crnr_dc_6.doc> (accessed 10 January 2010), para 1.09.

  172. 172.

    ‘US Copyright Office: Report on Legal Protection for Databases: August 1997’ available at <www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf> (accessed 30 November 2016).

  173. 173.

    Thakur (n 6) 102.

  174. 174.

    Supra section 4.4.1.

  175. 175.

    ibid.

  176. 176.

    Thakur (n 6) 102; Citing the competitive disadvantage, John Tessensohn, ‘The Devil’s in the Details: The Quest for Legal Protection of Computer Databases and the Collections of Information Act’ (1997-98) 38(3) IDEA Intell Prop L Rev 439, 466.

  177. 177.

    Supra section 4.4.

  178. 178.

    Warren Publications, Inc v. Microdos Data Corp, 115 F3d 1509 (11th Cir 1997) (Warren Publishing); Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674, (2d Cir.1998).

  179. 179.

    Warren Publications (n 178); Matthew Bender (n 178).

  180. 180.

    ‘US Copyright Office: Report on Legal Protection for Databases: August 1997’ available at <www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf> (accessed 30 November 2016).

  181. 181.

    Supra section 3.3.

  182. 182.

    In the case of Matthew Bender (n 178), West Publishing published compilations of case reports. The contentious issue in this case involved judicial opinions, which was claimed copyrightable by West. The 2nd circuit held that alterations undertaken by West in this regard involved the addition and arrangement of facts. In relation to arrangement, the effort on the part of West was merely re-arrangement of data in those judicial opinions. Thus, the only way to assess creativity in the compilation of West depended on selection or arrangement. In this context, such selection or arrangement lacked minimum creativity as it was obvious and typical and hence, there was no copyright infringement.

  183. 183.

    ‘US Copyright Office: Report on Legal Protection for Databases: August 1997’ available at <www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf> (accessed 30 November 2016).

  184. 184.

    Stephen M Maurer and others ‘Europe’s database right experiment (2001) 294 Science (26 October 2001) 769-770.

  185. 185.

    Steven J Metalitz, ‘Response of the Information Industry Association for the Hearing on Databases Chapter 6 of the Green Paper on Copyright and the Challenge of Technology’ in Jon A Baumgarten (ed) ‘Fact’ and Data Protection After Feist (Prentice Hall Law & Business, New Jersey 1991).

  186. 186.

    Robert A Simons, ‘Industry Impact (Database Providers)’ in Jon A Baumgarten (ed) ‘Fact’ and Data Protection After Feist (Prentice Hall Law & Business, New Jersey 1991).

  187. 187.

    Supra section 4.2.

  188. 188.

    Bitton (n 56) 93 and 96.

  189. 189.

    The database debate continued for a period of more than eight years.

  190. 190.

    Tyson and Sherry (n 65).

  191. 191.

    ibid.

  192. 192.

    115F3d 1509 (11th cir 1997).

  193. 193.

    Raymond Snoddy, ‘Reed Elsevier Shares Drop on US Legal Ruling’ Financial Times, 23 May 1997.

  194. 194.

    ibid.

  195. 195.

    Supra section 4.3.

  196. 196.

    Reed Elsevier annual report 1997 (n 95).

  197. 197.

    Feist Publications (n 86).

  198. 198.

    ‘Thomson annual report 1998’ available at <https://bib.kuleuven.be/files/ebib/jaarverslagen/Thomson_1998.pdf> (accessed 10 December 2010).

  199. 199.

    Reed Elsevier annual report 1997 (n 95).

  200. 200.

    Bitton (n 56) 146.

  201. 201.

    ibid 169.

  202. 202.

    ibid.

  203. 203.

    In agreement with Bitton (n 56) 169.

  204. 204.

    In the words of David Fewer, “Legislating windfalls and sheltering markets from the rigours of competition through sui generis property rights, especially in the absence of market failure or a pressing social need, cannot be easily squared with traditional notions of democratic governance and responsible policy-making”, Fewer (n 106) 165 and 180.

  205. 205.

    This case was especially considered by the proponents of the database bill in 1998. The opponents did concede that Warren Publishing was wrongly decided but argued that one decision does not call for new legislation; Supra (n 121).

  206. 206.

    One has to remember that Warren Publishing and the Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing reach the same conclusion, although different approach was followed, Warren Publishing (n 178); BellSouth Advertising & Publication Corp v Donnelley Information Publishing Inc. 999 F2d 1436 (11th Cir 1993). In the case of Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing the 11th circuit held that the act of inserting the information in the yellow pages telephone directory in a computer did not constitute any infringement. The claimant said that selection has been made by following certain parameters and the listings were not exhaustive. Nevertheless, the court held that the selection level did not meet the requirement of Feist. The decision of this case is questionable, since the 11th circuit court in Southern Bell Telephone found copyright infringement in yellow pages directory, Southern Bell Telephone v. Associated Telephone 756 F 2d 801 (11th Cir. 1985) 809. In this case, the Feist criteria was fulfilled by “… preparing artwork and layout, and in the selection, compilation and arrangement of the information contained therein”.

  207. 207.

    Ian Kyer and Steve Moutsatsos, ‘Database Protection: The Old world heads off in a new direction’ (1993) 9(1) CLSR 11; Shelly Warwick in her PhD thesis have successfully argued that there was little evidence to support the need to provide greater legal protection for factual works subsequent to the Feist decision, especially in the presence of available legal and technological protection. Based on Feist enacting database protection law in US would be unnecessary, unconstitutional and poor policy, Shelly Warwick, ‘The Judicial Influence and Policy Implications of Feist in regard to the protection of Databases and Compilations’(PhD thesis, Graduate School-New Brunswick, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 1999); Similar contention has been raised, while using trespass to chattels in solving database protection case (eBay v Bidders’ Edge 100 FSupp 2d 1058(ND Ca 2000)) and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as amended in 1996 (Register.com v Verio 126 F Supp 2d 238(SNDY Dec 12 2000), Jonathan Band, ‘New theories of database protection’( March 2003) Managing Intellectual Property 1; Contrary to the above outlined viewpoints legislation has been regarded as the way after the Feist decision, James E Schatz and others, ‘What’s mine is yours? The dilemma of factual compilations’ (1991–92) 17(2) U Dayton L Rev 423, 439–440; In the absence of empirical evidence, the proposition that there is a problem with database protection, is unclear, Jacqueline Lipton, ‘Databases as Intellectual Property: New Legal Approaches’ (2003) 25(3) EIPR 139, 773 and 825.

  208. 208.

    Nelson (n 58) 469.

  209. 209.

    ibid.

  210. 210.

    H.R. 354, (Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, H.R. 354, 106th Cong. (1999)) was introduced by Representative Howard Coble (6th District of North Carolina), and H.R. 1858 (The Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act, H.R. 1858, 106th Cong. (1999)) was introduced by Representative Tom Bliley (7th District of Virginia) in Jonathan Band and Makoto Kono, ‘The Database Protection Debate in the 106th Congress’ (2001) 62(2) Ohio St L J 869.

  211. 211.

    Davison (n 67) 261-263; see (n 65); For instance, New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ in Jonathan Band and Makoto Kono ( n 210).

  212. 212.

    Howard Fogt and others ‘An American view on the EU Database Directive’ (1995) 46 Managing Intellectual Property 33, 33; Lisa Barr, ‘Database Protection Bill’ (1997–98) 8(2) DePaul-LCA J Art & Ent 371.

  213. 213.

    Chamber raises concern over database legislation’ (US Chamber of Commerce, 22 September 2003) available at <https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/chamber-raises-concern-over-database-legislation> (accessed 10 August 2011).

  214. 214.

    Jonathan Band and Makoto Kono (n 210).

  215. 215.

    Supra section 4.4.

  216. 216.

    Supra (n 213).

  217. 217.

    Supra section 4.3.

  218. 218.

    (Reference to the words use by register of copyrights) Submission of David O Carson and the contemplation of a gap in the database market, which is difficult to fill up with technology, David O Carson, ‘General Counsel, United States Copyright Office before the Subcommittee on courts, the internet and Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary and Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Committee on Energy and Commerce, 108th Congress’ (United States Copyright Office, 23 September 2003) available at <http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html> (accessed 15 September 2009); However, Carson statement, representing the US Copyright Office did not take a position on database legislation in US, although the Copyright Office was sympathetic to the efforts made.

  219. 219.

    Tyson and Sherry (n 65).

  220. 220.

    ibid.

  221. 221.

    It is arguable to have special database legislation in place under these current circumstances even though other existing means may not provide full proof solution. Jane Ginsburg argues that there is the need of carefully carving out a solution measure for database protection and such solution should also consider the problems associated with the sui generis database legislation in Europe, Jane C Ginsburg, ‘A marriage of convenience? A comment on the Protection of Databases’ (2007) 82 (3) Chicago-Kent L Rev 1171, 1178.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Indranath Gupta

Authors
  1. Indranath Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Indranath Gupta .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gupta, I. (2017). The Effect of Feist in the US Database Market. In: Footprints of Feist in European Database Directive. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3981-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3981-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3980-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3981-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation