FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W258347739> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W258347739 endingPage "336" @default.
• W258347739 startingPage "303" @default.
• W258347739 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that '[n]o author may copyright his ideas or facts he narrates.'1 However, with explosion of computer software industry, question of whether something is a fact, thus having no copyright protection, is fast becoming lead actor on stage of federal copyright law.2 Adding further confusion to this issue is Supreme Court's holding that of facts are within subject matter of copyright.3 At heart of this conflict is complex issue of whether state law should provide protection where copyright law does not or whether federal copyright law preempts state law relief. This Note discusses copyrightability of factual compilations and specifically enters fray of federal copyright preemption of state law claims. Section II will provide background to complex area of copyright protection in computer software industry. Additionally, section II will briefly explore how state law claims have attempted to fill gaps left by an unpredictable federal copyright law. Section III will give facts and court's reasoning in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, a pivotal case dealing with copyright protection of factual compilations.4 Section IV will assert that Seventh Circuit erred in not preempting ProCD's state common law claims. Additionally, section IV will propose an analysis under Supreme Court's copyright standard that Seventh Circuit should have used in ProCD. This proposed analysis is grounded in assertion that current copyright law is adequate to protect factual compilations used in computer software programs. Finally, it will be asserted that interests of (1) supremacy and (2) uniformity should serve to motivate courts to use proper analysis when asked to determine copyright protection of factual compilations. II. BACKGROUND A. Federal Copyright Protection of Factual Compilations Arguably, copyright law began more as an effort to protect rather than creative genius.5 In describing infancy of copyright, Columbia University School of Law Professor Jane C. Ginsburg states that the scope of copyright was initially rather modest. The first author might forbid second comer's copying from first production, but he could not prohibit a second comer from creating a competing work-if competitor acquired same information from primary sources.6 Indeed, early case law depicts an era where individual effort was sliding scale used to extend copyright protection. In Banks v. McDivitt, an 1875 New York case, court stated: No compiler of such a book has a monopoly of subject of which book treats. Any other person is permitted to enter that department of literature and make a similar book. But, subsequent investigator must investigate for himself, from original sources which are open to all. He cannot use labors of a previous compiler . . . and save his own time by copying results of previous compiler's study, although same results could have been attained by independent labor. The compiler of a digest, a road book, a directory, or a map can search and survey for himself in fields which all laborers are permitted to occupy, but cannot adopt as his own products of another's toil.7 This analysis provided an avenue of protection for those willing to engage in business of compiling directories and other factual based works. However, this only analysis was short-lived; scope of copyright has steadily evolved from protection of labor to protection of personality and individual authorship.8 Along with this evolution has come-not surprisingly-judicial inconsistency and controversy over which type of work deserves more protection-labor intensive work or original, subjective authorship.9 Ginsburg points out that these two extremes are illustrated by courts that on one hand give[] primacy to personality concept of original authorship, thereby relegating view to extremes of historical anomaly and on other, admit [labor intensive] compilations into company of copyrightable works by simply declar[ing] existence of [a valid copyright]. …" @default.
• W258347739 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W258347739 creator A5088109783 @default.
• W258347739 date "1998-01-01" @default.
• W258347739 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W258347739 title "ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg: The End Does Not Justify the Means in Federal Copyright Analysis" @default.
• W258347739 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W258347739 type Work @default.
• W258347739 sameAs 258347739 @default.
• W258347739 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W258347739 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W258347739 hasAuthorship W258347739A5088109783 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C110346835 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C151957068 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C2776210200 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C2777006572 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C2779710374 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C2987650672 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W258347739 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C110346835 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C11413529 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C151957068 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C170706310 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C17744445 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C199539241 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C2776210200 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C2777006572 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C2777351106 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C2778272461 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C2779710374 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C2987650672 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C34974158 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C41008148 @default.
• W258347739 hasConceptScore W258347739C48103436 @default.
• W258347739 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W258347739 hasLocation W2583477391 @default.
• W258347739 hasOpenAccess W258347739 @default.
• W258347739 hasPrimaryLocation W2583477391 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W1489418896 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W1559429752 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W1596870646 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W1597759919 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W203138443 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W2126291542 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W216102579 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W2268823248 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W2600356656 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W288032459 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W3012706889 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W3121961846 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W3122811772 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W3124945490 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W3125354624 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W3206878790 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W190627607 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W213453052 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W2596096828 @default.
• W258347739 hasRelatedWork W2941743938 @default.
• W258347739 hasVolume "1998" @default.
• W258347739 isParatext "false" @default.
• W258347739 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W258347739 magId "258347739" @default.
• W258347739 workType "article" @default.