Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Decision In Australia Vindicates 3d-Party EPG Provider
angry tapir writes "In a landmark decision, the High Court of Australia has ruled that Electronic Program Guide (EPG) vendor IceTV has not violated the copyright of Channel 9 by reproducing programming information in its third-party EPG. This case has been running since May 2006, when the Nine Network alleged that IceTV's electronic program guide infringed the copyright of Channel 9's television schedule."
I recall a recent story about UK train schedules being made available by a third party, which *was* deemed an infringement.
You guys got it right. Thumbs-up.
"Good news, everyone!"
Can be found here.
Well done Ice TV.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
It has always been a basic principle, at least in the US: you cannot copyright a fact. You can copyright the way you word things about a fact, but that is not the same thing.
So, for example: your article about the beauty of yesterday's sunset at 7:45pm can be copyrighted. But anyone else can read your article, and in turn write that yesterday's sunrise was at 7:45pm, because that basic fact is not copyrightable.
That is a sufficiently thorough explanation, as it really is a very basic element of law. If you still don't believe it, http://tinyurl.com/2c9np
Reading the full decision from the High Court is actually (for a change) worth while. It's in pretty plain English, and is very well written.
It correctly identifies that facts can not be copyright, even when "colocated" with original material that can be. However, the "original material" may consist of the presentation of those facts, such as their order. Consider a poem that consists of well know facts, but presented in a dramatic and original order.
They determined that IceTV had indeed copied facts, and that there was minimal originality in the ordering of those facts because they were simply presented in chronological order - which is both obvious and necessary for their intended function.
Finally, they also noted that Nine Networks had probably not expended much effort to arrange the information, which could also be a factor in such cases.
What the court has said is that although collections of facts can be copyrighted, the question is to the degree of originality in the expression of those facts.
In the case of the TV guide, the alleged infringement consisted of two pieces of information; the program title and the time of transmission. The title is supplied by the program's creator; not Channel 9 and the time can only be expressed in a standard way (Channel 9 could hardly claim copyright of "7:30 pm"); Channel 9 has therefore not exercised creativity or originality.
The train timetable is much the same. There are two pieces of information; a station name (which is much like the program name) and a departure time. Cityrail has not exercised any creativity or originality in the expression of this information.
It is the lack of originality of expression that results in the information not being copyright; it is not a fair use claim, so the amount of information copied does not matter.