This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
While the raw data within a database may not be eligible for copyright protection, the originality involved in selecting, organizing, or arranging the data can bring a database under the scope of copyrightlaw. This raises critical questions: What qualifies as originality in the context of database protection?
There’s a significant probability that someone already owns the rights to the content even if you cannot locate an explicit declaration stating that it is intended for publicuse. It would be preferable to obtain written authorization from the copyright owners before using the original content.
In that case, the Court found that Google’s use of Java API naming conventions in its Android operating system was fairuse under copyrightlaw. Because its fairuse decision decided the case, the court did not rule separately on whether the API was even copyrightable in the first place.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Texas held that a government entity may reproduce, display, and utilize a copyrighted work for its own benefit without paying any compensation to the copyright owner. ” So, the question arises as to whether such “intellectual property” is “private property.” 1073 (2019).
It is strange because that would mean that the unpublished portions would also be government works available for publicuse. ” Thus, there are some copyright arguments or policies in play beyond those most immediately considered in the motion papers. italics added for emphasis in items (i)-(iii)).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content