11 little words … copyright infringement
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- With news that the Associated Press is to go after sites that post AP stories without permission — including links — in the background, “The copying and reproduction of just 11 words of a news article can be copyright infringement, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled,” says Out-Law.com.
Clippings service Infopaq, founded in Denmark in 1998, was taken to court by Danish newspaper industry body Danske Dagblades Forening (DDF) over its reproduction of 11-word snippets of news for sale to clients, says the story, going on:
“The agency would scan in newspaper pages and use software to turn the image of the page into text. If pre-determined keywords that clients wanted monitored appeared in text then that word and the five words on either side of it were kept and the rest of the text thrown away.
“Clients were then sent the 11 words and the details of what page of what publication on what date the words appeared as well as an indication of how far into the article the words came.”
The Court ruled »»»
The possibility may not be ruled out that certain isolated sentences, or even certain parts of sentences in the text in question, may be suitable for conveying to the reader the originality of a publication such as a newspaper article, by communicating to that reader an element which is, in itself, the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of that article. Such sentences or parts of sentences are, therefore, liable to come within the scope of the protection provided for in Article 2(a) of that directive.
And »»»
An act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of [the] directive.
Adds Out-Law.com, “The Court said that it would be up to a national court to decide whether or not a newspaper article deserved copyright protection as being “original in the sense that it is its author`s own intellectual creation”, but it did say that it was “common ground” that newspaper articles did qualify as literary works and so as being protected by copyright law.
“The ECJ said that Infopaq’s processes, then, could not be exempted from the Copyright Directive and that if the national court ruled the articles in question to be deserving of copyright protection then there will have been an infringement.”
go after sites – We`re gonna gitcha! AP to news pirates, July 28, 2009
Out-Law.com – Eleven-word snippets can infringe copyright, rules ECJ, July 27, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Let’s copyright everything so nothing gets done and big businesses go under because no one will support their overpriced, heavily licensed product.
Then we can abolish the copyright crap and start over using the info from TechDirt and Crosbie Finch and Trent Reznor (tech dirt really).
July 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“Letâs copyright everything so nothing gets done”
I agree Robert.
Let them have their copyrights.
And watch as those who share freely gain ground, being the only affordable option.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Let’s create a Creative (only-for-sane-people-)Commons that does what Creative Commons do but blocks big companies. Like CC-NC, but specifically against big media.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Newspaper articles probably deserve copyright protection. But only for a short time, certainly not 125 years.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:28 am
I’ll copyright the word “THE” in any spelling and format and also add to that list “NEWS” and “LAWSUIT”.
I’m getting paid now suckers. And my copyright will include the above mentioned words also used as a sentence or seperatley.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
You may not believe it. But when I write an article on my blog in my own words, I do have a copyright on that article.
Now if you just came and copy&pasted my article, without any link back to it source you have infringed my copyright. You have stolen my intellectual property. Simple as that.
It took me time to write and to research it. So I’d think my own articles are pretty much my own, and you have no right to do anything with it unless I give you my explicit permission.
11 words can form unique sentences made my be, and may have a background to it I researched prior. So yea, I believe they did infringe the copyright.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
NoCanDo says:
“…when I write an article on my blog in my own words, I do have a copyright on that article.”
True
“You have stolen my intellectual property”
False. Please refer to a legal definition of “steal”.
“you have no right to do anything with it unless I give you my explicit permission.”
False. Please refer to “Fair Use”.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:59 am
“communicating to that reader an element which is, in itself, the”
Oh dear, now I’ve gone and done it.
/me grabs his shotgun…
Catch me if you can suckers!