Sweat of the brow

Last updated
As James Gillray, the artist of this 1797 etching, died in 1815, his works are in the public domain throughout the world. However, under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, new copyright claims could be made over mechanical reproductions of the etching, due to the skill and labour involved in the reproduction. 'The feast of reason, and the flow of soul,' - ie - the wits of the age, setting the table in a roar by James Gillray (cropped).jpg
As James Gillray, the artist of this 1797 etching, died in 1815, his works are in the public domain throughout the world. However, under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, new copyright claims could be made over mechanical reproductions of the etching, due to the skill and labour involved in the reproduction.

Sweat of the brow is a copyright law doctrine. According to this doctrine, an author gains rights through simple diligence during the creation of a work, such as a database, or a directory. Substantial creativity or "originality" is not required.

Contents

Under a "sweat of the brow" doctrine, the creator of a work, even if it is completely unoriginal, is entitled to have that effort and expense protected; no one else may use such a work without permission, but must instead recreate the work by independent research or effort. The classic example is a telephone directory. In a "sweat of the brow" jurisdiction, such a directory may not be copied, but instead a competitor must independently collect the information to issue a competing directory. The same rule generally applies to databases and lists of facts.

According to the Databases Directive 96/9/EC, member states of the EU are obliged to confer protection known as the database right on non-original databases, that is on those that embody no creativity, but are a consequence of substantial investment (financial, labour etc.). It is an infringement when a person without consent "extracts or re-uses all or a substantial part of the contents of the database". [1]

Etymology

In a traditional English idiom, the sweat of one's brow refers to the effort expended in labour, and the value created thereby. [2] The phrase is famously used in English translations of Genesis3:19. [3] The law doctrine takes its name from this idiom.

By territory

United States

The United States rejected this doctrine in the 1991 United States Supreme Court case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service ; [4] until then it had been upheld in a number of US copyright cases. [5] [6]

Under the Feist ruling in the US, mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and thus not protected by copyright, no matter how much work went into collating them. The arrangement and presentation of a collection may be original, but not if it is "simple and obvious" such as a list in alphabetical or chronological order.

United Kingdom

Old approach

An early example of the "sweat of the brow" doctrine in UK law [7] was the leading case of Walter v Lane (1900) in which reporters took down shorthand notes of a series of speeches given by the Earl of Rosebery, and transcribed them, adding punctuation, corrections and revisions. These were then published as verbatim reports of the speeches in The Times newspaper. The defendant, John Lane, reproduced the speeches in a book, relying heavily without permission on The Times publications. The question for the court was whether the reporters could be considered "authors" of the published versions under the terms of the Copyright Act 1842 . The House of Lords held that the reporters were indeed "authors", and hence entitled to copyright, on the basis of the skill, effort and time involved in preparing the text for publication.

At the time Walter v Lane was decided, UK copyright law contained no explicit notion of "originality". The subsequent Copyright Act 1911 added for the first time a specific statutory requirement that, for copyright to subsist in a work, that work must be "original". However, for well over a hundred years UK courts did not adopt a literal reading of that requirement, instead holding that a significant expenditure of skill and labour in the creation of a new work was sufficient.

In University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd (1916), [8] the question arose as to whether certain mathematics exam papers, consisting of conventional problems presented in a conventional manner, were original literary works in which copyright would subsist. The court held that originality did not mean that the work must be an expression of individual thought, and the fact that the authors drew on a body of knowledge common to mathematicians did not compromise originality. The requirement of originality, it was held, did not require that expression be in an original or novel form. It did, however, require that the work not be copied from another work. It must originate from the author. Consequently, even though there was no creative input, the skill, labour, and judgement of the authors was sufficient to make the papers original literary works.

In Cummins v Bond (1927), a psychic in a trance claimed to have written down what spirits told her, through a process of automatic writing. In court, she accepted that she was not the creative author of the writing. Nonetheless, the court held that she had exercised sufficient labour and skill in translating and transcribing what the spirits told her, so she had a copyright in the resulting literary work. [9]

New (European) approach

The 'skill and labour' approach was challenged in 2012 when a case was taken to the European Court of Justice in which Football DataCo claimed copyright infringement over web sites which were reproducing match schedules from several major football leagues. Football DataCo asserted that these schedules were copyrighted works due to the skill and labour involved in their preparation, and that the company was given exclusive rights to license their reproduction. Based on its interpretation of UK law, the court rejected the notion that skill and labour was enough to grant protection to a work, since "unless the procedures for creating the lists concerned as described by the national court are supplemented by elements reflecting originality in the selection or arrangement of the data contained in those lists, they do not suffice for those lists to be protected by the copyright laid down in the directive". [10]

This European approach has prevailed over the old 'skill and labour' test. In a copyright notice on "digital images, photographs and the internet" last updated in November 2015, the UK Intellectual Property Office stated that digital reproductions of public domain images are not protected by copyright, arguing that "according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author's own 'intellectual creation'. Given this criterion, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as 'original'." [11] A November 2023 Appeal Court judgement (THJ v. Sheridan, 2023) by Lord Justice Arnold clarified that, in the UK, no new copyright is created in making a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain artwork. [12] [13]

Germany

Prior to 2021, German law granted ancillary copyrights (Leistungsschutzrecht) due to the effort involved in the production or exploitation of creative works. [14] In 2016, a regional court in Berlin ruled that digitized versions of public domain paintings were entitled to new copyrights due to the effort and expertise necessary to create the reproductions. The case was appealed. [15] [16] In 2018 a court upheld the decision that the digitized public domain paintings were entitled to new copyrights. [17] In 2021, Germany implemented Article 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Germany's implementation law specified that reproductions of visual works in the public domain are not protected by copyright or related rights. [18]

European Union

In 2019, the European Union adopted the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Article 14 of the directive states that reproductions of works of visual art that are in the public domain cannot be subject to copyright or related rights, unless the reproduction is an original creative work. [19]

Israel

Israeli law requires that a work exhibit some degree of originality in order to be copyrightable. In other words, Israeli law does not subscribe to the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. [20] However, the amount of originality required is minimal, and the transliteration or interpretation of an artifact is covered by copyright. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright</span> Legal concept regulating rights of a creative work

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive legal right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States and fair dealings doctrine in the United Kingdom.

The copyright law of the European Union is the copyright law applicable within the European Union. Copyright law is largely harmonized in the Union, although country to country differences exist. The body of law was implemented in the EU through a number of directives, which the member states need to enact into their national law. The main copyright directives are the Copyright Term Directive 2006, the Information Society Directive and the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Copyright in the Union is furthermore dependent on international conventions to which the European Union or their member states are part of, such as TRIPS Agreement or the Berne Convention.

<i>Walter v Lane</i> UK copyright case of 1900

Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539, was a judgement of the House of Lords on the question of Authorship under the Copyright Act 1842. It has come to be recognised as a seminal case on the notion of originality in copyright law and has been upheld as an early example of the sweat of the brow doctrine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Database right</span> Legal protection for computer datasets

A database right is a sui generis property right, comparable to but distinct from copyright, that exists to recognise the investment that is made in compiling a database, even when this does not involve the "creative" aspect that is reflected by copyright. Such rights are often referred to in the plural: database rights.

Originality is the aspect of created or invented works that distinguish them from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or substantially derivative works. The modern idea of originality is according to some scholars tied to Romanticism, by a notion that is often called romantic originality. The validity of "originality" as an operational concept has been questioned. For example, there is no clear boundary between "derivative" and "inspired by" or "in the tradition of."

Copyright in the Netherlands is governed by the Dutch Copyright Law, copyright is the exclusive right of the author of a work of literature or artistic work to publish and copy such work.

The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether a particular work can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author", rather than "never having occurred or existed before".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988</span> United Kingdom law

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, also known as the CDPA, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 15 November 1988. It reformulates almost completely the statutory basis of copyright law in the United Kingdom, which had, until then, been governed by the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74). It also creates an unregistered design right, and contains a number of modifications to the law of the United Kingdom on Registered Designs and patents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Related rights</span> Intellectual property rights of a creative work not connected with the works actual author

In copyright law, related rights are the rights of a creative work not connected with the work's actual author. It is used in opposition to the term "authors' rights". Neighbouring rights is a more literal translation of the original French droits voisins. Both authors' rights and related rights are copyrights in the sense of English or U.S. law.

<i>Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd</i> 2001–2002 legal case about copyright

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd was a 2001–2002 case in the Federal Court of Australia in which Telstra successfully argued that its copyright had been infringed by the reproduction of data from the White and Yellow Pages telephone directories in CD-ROM format.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of panorama</span> Permissive provision in copyright laws

Freedom of panorama (FoP) is a provision in the copyright laws of various jurisdictions that permits taking photographs and video footage and creating other images of buildings and sometimes sculptures and other art works which are permanently located in a public space, without infringing on any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works, and the publishing of such images. Panorama freedom statutes or case law limit the right of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the creators and distributors of such images. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize the creation and distribution of derivative works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of intellectual property</span> Overview of and topical guide to intellectual property

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to intellectual property:

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.

<i>Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.</i> U.S. legal case on copyright originality

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience, and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under US law is originality.

Japanese copyright laws consist of two parts: "Author's Rights" and "Neighbouring Rights". As such, "copyright" is a convenient collective term rather than a single concept in Japan. Japan was a party to the original Berne convention in 1899, so its copyright law is in sync with most international regulations. The 1899 law protected copyrighted works for 30 years after the author's death. Law changes promulgated in 1970 extended the duration to 50 years. However, in 2004 Japan further extended the copyright term to 70 years for cinematographic works; for films released before 1971, the copyright term also spans 38 years after the director's death.

Under the law of the United Kingdom, a copyright is an intangible property right subsisting in certain qualifying subject matter. Copyright law is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended from time to time. As a result of increasing legal integration and harmonisation throughout the European Union a complete picture of the law can only be acquired through recourse to EU jurisprudence, although this is likely to change by the expiration of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, the UK has left the EU on 31 January 2020. On 12 September 2018, the European Parliament approved new copyright rules to help secure the rights of writers and musicians.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute</span> 2009 legal dispute

In July 2009, lawyers representing the National Portrait Gallery of London (NPG) sent an email letter warning of possible legal action for alleged copyright infringement to Derrick Coetzee, an editor/administrator of the free content multimedia repository Wikimedia Commons, hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Copyright in compilation is a facet of copyright law that may provide copyright protection to a compilation of material, irrespective of copyright in the underlying material.

The labor theory of copyright, also known as the natural rights theory, is one of the most prominent theories of copyright, among others like the personality theory and the incentive/welfare theory. According to the labor theory, an individual has a right to the product of their labor, whether physical or intellectual. It is based on the John Locke's labor theory of property which says that persons are entitled to the fruits of their own labor, and by extension, intellectual property can be viewed as the fruits of an individual's mental labor. While the Lockean theory was originally intended for conventional forms of property, it can be extended to justify intellectual property in general and copyright in particular if we view an owner's claim to traditional forms of property as being analogous to an author's claims over their intellectual property.

<i>IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd is a 2009 decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the application of copyright law to a compilation of television schedules broadcast by the Nine Network and published by IceTV.

References

  1. ↑ EU Richtlinie 96/9/EG Archived 2007-06-21 at the Wayback Machine (in German)
  2. ↑ "Sweat, v. t." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 ed). ARTFL Project. p. 1457. Archived from the original on 2006-03-03. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
  3. ↑ "New Living Translation". Tyndale House Publishers, inc. Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2007-05-30. By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat
  4. ↑ 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
  5. ↑ Leaffer, Marshall A. (2008) [2005]. アメリカ著作権法[Understanding Copyright Law (4th edition)] (in Japanese). Translated by 牧野 (Makino), 和夫 (Kazuo). LexisNexis Japan. p. 94. ISBN   978-4-8419-0509-0--Chapter 2 Article 12-B{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  6. ↑ 山本 (Yamamoto), 隆司 (Takashi B.) (2008). アメリカ著作権法の基礎知識[The Fundamentals of American Copyright Law]. ユニ知的所有権ブックス9 (UNI IP Books 9) (in Japanese) (2 ed.). 太田出版 (Ohta Books). ISBN   978-4-7783-1112-4. 米国著作権法における創作性の概念は、その後下級裁判所の採用した額の汗 (sweat of the brow) の理論によって一時混乱した。しかし、約90年ぶりに連邦最高裁が創作性の概念を論じた1991年のファイスト判決は、次のように述べて、上記の伝統的理解を確認した。(translation: The definition of Originality had been disturbed by the sweat of the brow doctrine adopted by lower courts. After almost 90 years from the 1903 Bleistein case, however, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the traditional understanding of the Originality at the Feist case in 1991.)
  7. ↑ Gendreau, Ysolde (2009). An Emerging Intellectual Property Paradigm: Perspectives from Canada . Edward Elgar Publishing. pp.  151–152. ISBN   978-1847205971.
  8. ↑ University of London Press v University Tutorial [1916] 2 Ch 601
  9. ↑ William Patry (2005-08-10). "The Patry Copyright Blog: Authorship and Religion". Williampatry.blogspot.gr. Retrieved 2013-10-02.
  10. ↑ Wilson, Bill (1 March 2012). "Football match fixture list copyright claim rejected". BBC News. London, United Kingdom. Retrieved 2022-01-23.
  11. ↑ UK Intellectual Property Office (November 2015). "Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 June 2020. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
  12. ↑ Lord Justice Arnold (20 November 2023), THJ v Sheridan (PDF), Court of Appeal, Wikidata   Q124044396
  13. ↑ Bendor Grosvenor (29 December 2023). "Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last". The Art Newspaper . ISSN   0960-6556. Wikidata   Q124044230.
  14. ↑ Nolte, Georg (1 July 2010). "Zur Forderung der Presseverleger nach Einführung eines speziellen Leistungsschutzrechts: Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung". Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum (in German). 2 (2): 165–195. doi:10.1628/186723710792175149.
  15. ↑ Moody, Glyn (23 June 2016). "Digitising public domain images creates a new copyright, rules German court [Updated]". Ars Technica UK. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
  16. ↑ Reiss-Engelhorn Museum (REM) of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation(Landgericht Berlin2016), Text .
  17. ↑ "Bundesgerichtshof zur Veröffentlichung von Fotografien gemeinfreier Kunstwerke" (Press release) (in German). Karlsruhe Germany: Bundesgerichtshof. 2018-12-20. Archived from the original on 2019-06-21. Retrieved 2020-01-26.
  18. ↑ Germany's Directive 2019/790 Implementation Law
  19. ↑ "Final text of the Directive as submitted to the Parliament on 26 March 2019" (PDF). Retrieved 26 March 2019.
  20. ↑ Tempska, Urzula (2002). "'Originality' After the Dead Sea Scrolls Decision: Implications for the American Law of Copyright". Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review6 (1): 132.
  21. ↑ Elkin-Koren, Niva (2001). "Of Scientific Claims and Proprietary Rights: Lessons from the Dead Sea Scrolls" Archived 2015-09-24 at the Wayback Machine , Houston Law Review38 (2): 458, 460.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.