Oz High Court Hears Landmark TV Guide Copyright Case

highways writes "It's rare that that a copyright case is heard in the Australian High Court, let alone a case heard by all seven sitting judges. At stake is a small company IceTV (which we discussed when it launched four years back) taking on Australia's largest television station, the Nine Network, over the copyright status of the weekly broadcast schedule. That is, the schedule itself, not any synopsis or description of the individual programs. Users of PVRs such as MythTV will be well aware of the hassle it is to get a reliable program schedule stream to use for recordings. The saga has gone on for more than two years with Nine unsuccessfully suing IceTV, but later winning on appeal. At issue is whether a list of facts like an electronic program guide is a 'compilation' protected under Australian copyright law. This has implications for the copyright status of many publicly available databases and the limits to which the information can be distributed."

Comments

Simple

[ksd1337]

There is no copyright on non-creative works. A schedule isn't creative.

Re:Simple

[j0nb0y]

Absolutely correct. Copyright law in the US is based on the idea of a utilitarian social contract. "In order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" as the US Constitution puts it.

Outside the United States, copyright law is largely based on Lockean moral rights. Workers have a right to their work product. Under this theory, copyright can protect works with little to no creativity.

Although I am largely a believer in Locke's natural rights, I do not believe that it is a good idea to apply them in the field of Intellectual Property. I favor the general US approach, although I have many issues with the way the US Congress has implemented IP laws.

Re:Simple

[NoMaster]

There is no copyright on non-creative works. A schedule isn't creative.

You're wrong. Australian law, not US law, applies in Australia - and a collated list is considered a creative work & copyright applies. There's a landmark case that set the benchmark for this, involving a 3rd-party company (in India? The Philippines?) copying phonebooks to provide an alternative forward/reverse phonebook.

Regardless of that, why isn't a schedule creative? Sure, a list of facts may not be, but a schedule probably is. Events on a schedule aren't facts until they actually happen in order and on time; until then it's a creatively-envisioned list of events with a high probability of occurring. Besides, Australian TV guides are mostly fiction anyway, which is covered by copyright. An entry like this:

• "8:30pm - Australia's Funniest Home Videos - hosted by a flouncy trollop in a breezy sundress, so Dad can get a little stiffy while watching TV with the kids"

will most likely turn out to be:

• "8:47 - Mostly Recycled Cretinously Unfunny American Home Videos, With A Few Australian Ones Thrown In To Make You Think It's All Australian Content"

Note, not even the start time is correct, so it's definitely a work of fiction. It'll still be hosted by a flouncy trollop in a breezy sundress, so Dad can get a little stiffy while watching TV with the kids, though...

Copyrighting fact was not what they had in mind...

[NoNeeeed]

When copyright was created it was to protect artistic work, music, writing, stories, images etc. It was designed to protect artistic endeavor.

The idea that you can copyright a fact, rather than its representation is just dumb.

Besides, you would think that a TV station would want people to know what was on. Objecting to this is like objecting to people linking to your site. Personally I think it would be great if we could just collectively ignore idiots like this, since that seems to be what they want.

Re:Creative scheduling exists

[james.mcarthur]

Nine is probably suing because when people see the schedule they'll realise that Nine never starts a show at the scheduled time...