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 purposes.
