Although the suit does not allege federal copyright
infringement, the court found that Pollstar, a company that
provides world-wide concert tour information on its web site, had
the right to proceed with its lawsuit suit against its competitor
Gigmania, under California's misappropriation and unfair
competition laws.
The suit alleges that Gigmania regularly copies Pollstar's
concert information and then posts it on its own web site.
Pollstar's suit seeks damages and a court order against, among
other things, misappropriation and unfair competition.
Gigmania sought to dismiss the case on the ground that
Pollstar's claims are barred under US copyright law. Since 1991,
when the US Supreme Court ruled that a phone directory was not
“original” enough to be copyrighted because it was “so mechanical
or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever”, US courts have
been reluctant to protect databases - such as Pollstar's concert
information database - from copying by others.
Pollstar contended, however, that its concert information should
be entitled to protection under the misappropriation and unfair
competition laws of the State of California.
Pollstar pointed out that it incurs substantial cost in
gathering its concert information, that Pollstar and Gigmania are
direct competitors, that much of the value of Pollstar's concert
information is derived from the fact that the concert information
is up-to-date, and that the ability of a competitor to “free ride”
Pollstar's efforts, jeopardises the existence of Pollstar's
service.
The Court agreed with Pollstar and rejected all of Gigmania's
arguments for dismissal.
“As far as we are aware, this is the first time since [the phone
directory case in 1991] that a court has found that, absent some
contractual obligation, a factual database is entitled to legal
protection from copying”, said a lawyer for Pollstar. “This
decision has significant implications for web site owners who seek
to protect time-sensitive, factual information posted on their
sites from copying by competitors.”
The case highlights one of the differences between US and
European law. Laws on protecting databases were synchronised
throughout Europe at the start of 1998. In the UK, this took the
form of the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997.
Basically, in Europe, if your database is used by someone else
without permission, you probably have grounds for legal action
against them.
