[talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
edodd at billiau.net
Wed Feb 10 19:33:06 GMT 2010
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, David Murn wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 00:20 +1100, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
> > > On 9 February 2010 10:37, David Murn <davey at incanberra.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Except copyright law in Australia since the IceTV ruling is unlikely
> > > to cover simple databases of fact.
> > Just to reinforce this point, a case concluded today asserted that
> > Telstra/Sensis no longer have copyright for the Yellow and White Pages
> > Databases specifically in light of IceTV. There had been a previous
> > case involving those datasets concerning a company called Desktop
> > Marketing Systems (no prizes for guessing why they would like to rip
> > off phone books) that had subsisted for several years with the view
> > that copying the whole phonebook (even when presented in a different
> > form) was copyright infringement.
> Based on this same argument, could someone grab the OSM data files,
> change a couple of tag names and legally be able to sell it as their own
> product with their own (now seemingly useless) copyright on it? After
> all, every single piece of OSM is technically a matter of fact, not
> creative ability or anything else.
> Just curious what floodgates this decision could open, both good and
Haven't got far through the judgement so far but this sounds quite clear.
The Copyright Act does not protect facts, ideas or information contained in a
work, to ensure a balance is struck between the interests of authors and those
in society: IceTV  HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at  and the cases cited
therein. The Copyright Act does not provide protection for skill and labour
alone: IceTV  HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at , ,  and .
The Copyright Act protects the particular form of expression of the
(but not if it is computer generated, it must have an author)
More information about the Talk-au