Laserfiche WebLink
<br /><, <br /> <br />A Study of GIS 10' the Colorado Department 01 Natu,al Resources <br /> <br />Oclobe, 9. 1992 <br /> <br />0) <br />o <br />~ <br />.... <br /> <br />The implication of ~ for GIS custodians is that to the extent a GIS database is composed <br />merely of facts, without some unique element or structure, that database will not receive <br />copyright protection. Thus, any attempt to restrict the further use of the facts that have <br />been included in the database merely based on copyright would be ineffective. The <br />arrangement of the facts in the database may be protected, if such arrangement meets the <br />test for a unique or original compilation. One issue that remains open is the status of facts <br />contained in relational databases. The facts themselves may not be copyrightable under <br />&W. but when they are input to a relational database, which allows the creation of new <br />information based on the relationships of these facts, the compilation becomes more <br />valuable as more facts are added. Due to the relational powers of the compilation, a <br />database has a certain synergy, becoming more valuable as a whole than the sum of its <br />parts. The question is, at what point does a relational database become "original" enough <br />compilation to merit copyright protection'? Also, the database as a whole may be <br />protectable due to its relational nature, but could a requester get around the protection by <br />only asking for a copy of some or all of the data, without any of the value-adding <br />relationships'? The decision as to sufficient originality is subject to judicial discretion. <br />Since fs;ill is a recent case, there is no observable trend which will guarantee a particular <br />database is sufficiently original to merit copyright protection. <br /> <br />Although a copyright is deemed to exist in the hands of the creator of an original work <br />automatically, "registration," of a copyright with the Federal Copyright Office is necessary <br />in order to enforce a copyright in court. Use of copyright to prevent resale of the database <br />by one, who had licensed it without resale rights would thus be cumbersome at best. If <br />DNR ever contemplates licensing its GIS database'without rights to relicense or otherwise <br />subsequently transfer the database, it may be better to rely on a tightly drafte~ li,cense <br />agreement and contract law. Should the licensee breach the agreement, the agreement could <br />be more easily and probably more effectively enforced by a contract action in a Colorado <br />state court, rather than by a copyright action in a federal district court. <br /> <br />This is not to say, however, that copyright should not be used to protect the GIS database. <br />One advantage of using copyright protection is the possible "chilling" effect asserting the <br />copyright may have on those who might attempt to appropriate GIS database investments <br />for resale. Use of the copyright symbol may thus prevent some unauthorized use. To the <br />extent that DNR may wish to develop an administrative course of conduct exerting <br />proprietary control over any GIS database(s) which may be developed, use of copyright <br />would support that course of conduct. For those reasons, copyright may be important. It <br />should not, however, be regarded as the primary means of protecting the database against <br />unauthorized use. <br /> <br />INFORMATION ACCESS POLICY IN PERSPECTIVE <br /> <br />Along with addressing the legal issues, it is helpful to analyze the broader electronic <br />information policy debate taking place among information professionals and government <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />431.7 <br /> <br />PlanG,aphlcs. Inc. <br /> <br />18 <br />