Journal of Law, Information and Science
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Journal of Law, Information and Science |
|
The issue of property in, and ownership of, information in a legal sense is a vexed one. Protection of property rights in geographic information has yet to be addressed because of the some unresolved practical and emerging legal and theoretical questions. Maps, for example, have been used in many professional fields. Yet, it is still unclear exactly what parts of the map warrant protection. The representation of geographic data in digital form adds to further problems to the advances in information technology. As technological advancements continue to give rise to new and unforeseen property interests, the courts are struggling to apply legal concepts of intellectual property rights such as copyright to digital databases and maps. It is suggested in this paper that patents may be one way to go in terms of protecting property rights and in defining ownership. The problem of resolving rights in spatial databases illuminates shortcomings in legal theory in copyright as applied to geographic representations and to computer representations.
It has been asked whether geographic information systems (GIS) will become a weapon or a tool in the global village (Davies 1991). This is a fundamental question because of the potential impact the information revolution has on the social order. GIS is seen but a subset of this information revolution. In a positive way the power of GIS is that it is a double-edged tool. In providing instant access to vast amounts of data, it also provides the opportunity for abuse, to misinform and to invade the privacy of individuals on a far greater scale than ever before (Aronoff 1989). It is thus not surprising to read that “resolving the issues of GIS ownership, value, control and access presents a formidable challenge within current legal and institutional frameworks” (Antenucci et al. 1991: 237).
This paper explores the issue of property in, and ownership of, information in a legal and practical sense. The protection of property rights in geographic information has not been addressed because of emerging legal questions. In part one of this paper the peculiar nature of information is explored. Without a considered view on what is information other subsidiary issues cannot be understood. Then in part two, some problems and emergent legal and theoretical issues are discussed. In part three intellectual property rights such as copyright and patents are explained in the light of information technology and more particularly in terms of geographic information. Part four examines maps and databases specifically to tease out some of the issues involved and part five surveys current developments in Australia and elsewhere to detect trends and future directions. Tentative conclusions are then drawn from these discussions.
GISs are a technology fed by data. Raw data are transformed into information through initial processing. These imply that the data, as the basic components of a library of data æ a database æ are in a form that is useable by computers. Here we may also distinguish digital data from numeric and other kinds of data, for example, nominal, ordinal, ratio and interval. When these latter types of data are converted into machine readable form, invariably as a series of digits, they become digital data. In the context of processing therefore, when data is ‘ordered’ in some way to make it intelligible to humans, we then have the beginnings of information. Ironically, in the form of information it is neither necessary that computers are required nor are they an essential part of the context. This characterisation of data and information may be extended to higher levels of abstraction so that from information is derived knowledge and the sum of all knowledge provides an ‘intelligence’ to the scheme of things. Indeed it is sometimes said that ‘wisdom’ is the correct use of knowledge.
Data have been defined as observational facts. Data are essentially sensory and perceptual and are one of two classes of input to a computer (the other being the program). Information, on the other hand, refers to data processed, organised or classified into categories to serve some useful purpose. It is both a resource and a commodity but unlike matter and energy it is not consumed by use. Information depends heavily on ‘information technology’ (IT) but it is a far wider concept, with educational, social, economic, employment and cognitive implications. Data, information, knowledge and intelligence ascend hierarchically (Australia, 1991: vii). Higher orders of interpretation imply that knowledge derives from information as much as intelligence represents the end-product of combining all knowledge on one subject matter.
This definitional problem presented by limited vocabulary needs to be addressed in GIS related legislation. A far broader concept of information is required if it is to be used effectively in information technology. The concerns with property, ownership, data matching, the commercialisation of information and the problems of the transborder flow of data including privacy protection, copyright and product liability, each have policy implications (Australia 1991: 26). Information as a resource, which, depending on the way it is used, can be beneficial or detrimental to individuals, groups and ultimately to society at large. However, the various uses of information have outstripped the legal structures that are designed to provide a balance between governments and the individual. Also, further technological developments will widen the gap. For instance, it is observed that privacy protection in Australia is inadequate and viewed as an incomprehensive set of laws. Data systems are operating in the private and public sectors without reference to established data protection principles and new technology are being applied without adequate examination of their impact on privacy (Australia 1991: 48).
In this context data and information may be considered to be indistinguishable from all other commodities since they are subject to appropriation and sanctions in a legal system (Epstein 1991). But is this view correct? The legal question is that given that information is both a resource and a commodity not depleted by use, whether there can be ‘property’ in information. An answer to this question will help resolve several conceptual and related issues. Information is characterised peculiarly as a commodity possessing various unique qualities. As a legal and economic commodity it is characterised by the following:
• its value as a commodity is not depleted by use;
• it can be used and shared indefinitely without depriving the original owner of the data;
• it can be sold and retained at the same time;
• the same information can be used by more than one person at the same time;
• the same information can satisfy a variety of tasks and be manipulated for many different purposes; and,
• it can have different values for different types of customers (ALIC 1990c).
Thus, from a legal and economic perspective information has to be treated very differently. The quantity of any information is difficult to measure and as a result it will be difficult to put a price on information. It will also be difficult to define and distinguish property rights in information. Without a clear picture of property rights there will be a hesitancy in buying and selling of information. This will inhibit the development of an information market. In the market, anyone can inspect goods for sale, but such an inspection is impractical with information because the very act of inspection is tantamount to use and there are limited number of ways to prevent its dissemination. Other practical problems include the fact that information can be transmitted and disseminated at high-speed and low cost. At the same time with electronic dissemination, information can leak and computerisation creates more gates than the gatekeepers can control. In other contexts information may be considered a public good (Epstein 1991).
The issue of the ownership of data, as a common asset forming part of the social infrastructure (read info-structure) is one that has arisen from a previous discussion. Data collected by public agencies and indirectly funded by tax payers should be returned to the public at a price level which reflects the cost of a so-called “strategic price” of reproduction. According to Davies (1991) such a view is based on two propositions. First, publicly-held data are a common asset of the community which should be made equally accessible to all. A market price approach to making data available would imply that access will only be available to those who can afford and are willing to pay for the data. It will mean an aggravation of the social divisions of society into the ‘information-rich’ and ‘information-poor’ classes (see also Cho 1995). Secondly, data should be seen as an item of public infrastructure such as roads, power and utilities. As much as these are provided to stimulate economic growth, so should data be provided in a similar way. But, it is arguable that value-adding to information may create more wealth, especially among the smaller business information enterprises. Equally, the impact of GIS on the economy may be difficult to gauge.
It may be one thing to make data available to the community, but it is another to ensure the quality and timeliness of the data, if the community is to benefit from such information resources. It seems that there is now an apparent shift in emphasis with the increasing use of GISs and their concomitant data needs. The shift is from the mere collection of data to its use in the creation and servicing of spatial information products. In this process also there is a shift from information as a public good to information as a revenue generator. An extension to this is the licensing of third parties to sell data to market segments identified by the third party as being commercially profitable. However, the danger is that the further along this line in the marketing and distribution chain, the less control it seems, the public have of the public data.
As economies around the world shift from the industrial to an information economy it is believed that the benefits to governments of the sale and use of information services and products are becoming immeasurable. These include an increase in productivity in the public and private sectors, reduced costs, industrial development, an increase in the tax base, faster and better decisions, improved services, economies of scale, enhanced accuracy and the ability to perform tasks hitherto thought impossible. The value of data is also thought to increase many fold where it has been value-added through marketing and subsequent sale to users (Millhouse 1994). In Australia a Price Waterhouse Urwick survey of more than 120 spatial information system users suggests that the total expenditure on spatial information related services range between $395 million and $493 million in 1993. A majority of the spatial information system users surveyed expect that expenditures in GIS in Australia will increase by over 50 per cent during the next 3 years (Oosthuizen 1994). Estimates by Blakemore (1990) suggest in the European Community there is a total annual market of about US$2,947 million, with some 87 per cent of it in the form of financial data. As a corporate resource, information may be responsible for higher volumes of trade, of gaining a market edge and ultimately of increased profits.
Cost issues appear set to pose the biggest bone of contention among government data providers. Prices for public data currently range from nil to market price depending on the nature of the product and the custodial agency. The mood in some government circles in Australia is that the data should be “sent out the door as cheaply as possible.” However, economic policy based on public benefit considerations is steering the pricing policy towards one of marginal cost recovery plus cost value-adding by custodial agencies (Millhouse 1994).
In any GIS it seems that there may be three legal issues that are critical. These include:
• Who owns the information that is being produced?
• Where does the responsibility lie for the use or misuse of the information?
• Whether information is capable of being described as ‘property’? This is because if there is no property, then information cannot be bought and sold, much less given away.
These issues have to be matched with those laws which are said to govern such property æ the Copyright Act, Patents Act, trade secrets, common law contract and common law tort.
The nature of the legal issues in the use of information data therefore can be seen to emanate from both a policy perspective as well as the common law. Here it is proposed to examine the issue of property rights and proprietary interests in data and information. This may be pivotal in understanding the legal relations of data providers, users and third parties in so far as contract, tort, intellectual property and legal liability are concerned.
In law, ‘property’ is something that is capable of ownership, and sometimes meaning a right of ownership, for example, “property in the goods”. This latter illustration, however, lacks specificity and concreteness and is vague because it suggests an “interest” without specifying the breadth of that interest.
In Australia the preferred practice in the use of land information, for instance, is for the data producer and user to enter into an agreement. The Australian Land Information Council (ALIC) (1990b) for example, suggests that organisations should not sell their proprietary rights to land information in their custodianship, but rather to protect their ownership by licensing the “rights to use” only. The agreement for the supply of data should set out specific terms and conditions under which the use of the data is licensed. With the maturing of procedures in commercialising land information products and services, there may be agreements that permit the on-selling of a custodian’s information. But this form of permissive licensing is predicated upon an organisation’s clear vision of their intentions so that contracts set out clearly and fully the terms and conditions agreed by both parties (see also Cho 1994).
Licences are a mechanism that protect the commercial interests of the data producer by restricting usage. The vendor sells a licence to use the data rather than relinquishing ownership of the actual data. The restrictions on usage can include on-selling or giving away, the computing environment within which the data are used, the production and selling of commercial products incorporated or derived from the original data, and the kinds of acknowledgment to be ascribed to the owner or custodian of the data on any published work arising from the use of the data. In these sorts of circumstances the legal issues that can arise relate to problems of a contractual kind, such as breach of contract, as well as liability and sale of goods problems. Liability arises when the data provided are erroneous whereas if the data are not ‘fit for the purpose’ they were sold, then there can be a warranty and sale of goods problem.
The commercial exploitation of data by purchasers may be secured by the payment of royalties to a data producer. A royalty is a monetary consideration received by the owner of a copyright work for a licence to make use of that work. The preferred practice is that clients should not be permitted to make copies of the digital data for sale to third parties and that the connotation of a licence to copy should be avoided. The licence fee denotes the fee payable for that licence.
Recent litigation in the US demonstrates how property rights in data may be protected. In the US, a Court of Appeal has endorsed property rights in data and information (see GS Rasmussen & Assoc. Inc v Kalitta Flying Service Inc [1992] USCA9 546; [1992] 958 F. 2d 896). The Rasmussen case appears to be an authoritative basis to ground a right of unfair extraction and a precedent that recognises broad property rights in products derived from “sweat of the brow” efforts. The property rights here can be thought of as “a bundle” of intellectual property rights even if copyright, patent or trade secret rights are absent in that bundle.
Intellectual property rights are particularly relevant to GIS not only because GIS databases are very expensive to develop but also because copyright protection may be difficult to obtain for map products and even more difficult for digital GIS databases. Copyright incorporating concepts such as “sweat of the brow” are increasingly being looked at as a way of providing non-contractual protection of such databases.
This brings up the first major dilemma with the ownership and sale of digital information. One of the first attributes lost by users during GIS processing is ownership. In the past providers of geographic data are accustomed to taking out copyright on traditional paper maps. However, with digital data the task is not so easy. With traditional paper maps and books, the article may be handed over the counter to a customer, whereas with electronic products it is as impersonal as pushing a button and the data are transferred electronically. Sure, the same data may be handed over in a diskette, but still one is unable to examine the article or to preview its contents as one may with a map or book. Furthermore, when one digitises a published map there is a strong element of ownership and possession in the sense of “my digital map”. Moreover, when the user adds other information and performs reformatting and combinations with other data, the ‘paternity’ of the original sources become blurred or have disappeared after many re-iterations so that the ‘offspring’ now assumes a new identity and may now be claimed to be an ‘original’ in its own right. Copyright protection of the database may be established but this is complicated by the fact that the database is a dynamic one, subject to regular updates so that it is hard to define what ‘work’ in a database is really copyright material.
Another dilemma is that when information is sold, the seller still has the information as well as the buyer. There is no reduction in the value of the data, just that one more person has the data. The legal problem is that it will be difficult to apply the legal principles of moveable goods since there cannot be exclusive possession and control. Moveable goods in law refer to personal property such as goods as opposed to ‘immovables’ such as land or real property. As with the previous discussion there is no automatic protection if the buyer decides to resell the information to a third party in the absence of a contract forbidding on-sales and in copyright terms the problem becomes more blurred.
Traditionally, the term ‘intellectual property’ was used to refer to the rights conferred by the grant of a copyright in literary, artistic and musical works. More recently, it has been used to refer to a wide range of disparate rights, including industrial property such as patents and trade marks. The approach in Australian jurisdictions has been in a piecemeal fashion with additions to a list of ‘rights’ over time. These rights are both statutory and common law and/or equitable in character and derived from legislation in the United Kingdom. Copyright protects the rights of authors, the protection of designs relate to particular appearance of an article, trade marks protect the marks used by traders in relation to their goods or services and patents protect the rights of inventors in their inventions. In common law and equity, goodwill or commercial reputation are protected as are trade secrets and confidential information (Ricketson 1984).
Australian copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth.) as amended in 1984. Copyright is essentially a right to prevent the copying of works or other subject matter. It is a right to prevent the unauthorised reproduction by a third party of the tangible form in which a person has chosen to express ideas (Ricketson 1984: 49). Copyright must be distinguished from other intellectual property rights such as patents or designs. The latter are monopoly rights while copyright is the right to prevent others copying one’s work by reproducing it in any one of the ways outlined in the Act (Ricketson 1984: 55).
Apart from the copying-monopoly rights distinction above, copyright does not protect the ideas contained in a work, but only the form in which they are expressed. Patent protection, on the other hand, provides protection for ideas in so far as they are embodied in a manner of new manufacture under the Patents Act (Cth.). This idea-expression dichotomy is difficult to make and has spawned numerous litigated cases.
In Continental jurisdictions copyright has a further dimension, namely that of moral rights. Such rights include the so-called ‘right of paternity’, that is, the right to claim authorship of a work, and the ‘right of integrity’, that is, the right to prevent distortions or mutilations of the work. At present, Australia, pursuant to the Bern Convention of 1886 to which it is a signatory, is obligated to protect both the rights of ‘paternity’ and ‘integrity’.
Additionally, a new European Union Directive is being drafted for the first semester of 1996 which provides for the legal protection of databases in any form, that is electronic and paper-based databases. The two major objectives of the proposal are to harmonise copyright law applicable to the structure of databases and to create a new economic right which protects the investor against unauthorised extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or a substantial part of the database. The main feature of this Directive is thus the creation of an exclusive economic right which constitutes an important legal innovation. This sui generis right will be granted to the maker of a database to ensure protection of any substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of a database, irrespective of whether the database is in itself innovative. Moreover, this sui generis right is important as it will restrict, for a period of 15 years, unauthorised extraction and re-utilisation of the entirety or a substantial part of the database (Jens 1995: 16).
The copyright principles noted above sit uncomfortably with developments in information technology because it creates gaps in existing law and uncertainty in application. What and how much protection maps and electronic databases have under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth.) will require an examination of the provisions of the act. First, the Act protects works and subject-matter other than works. Electronic databases and GIS come under ‘literary’ and ‘artistic’ works as interpreted in the legal rather than ordinary sense. Thus, under s.10(1) of the Act ‘literary’ works include a table or compilation, expressed in words, figures or symbols, whether or not in a visible form. An electronic database as a factual compilation is considered a literary work. A ‘drawing’ is an artistic work and includes a diagram, map, chart or plan, for example, a GIS map in hard-copy. Secondly, the Act requires ‘originality’ in the sense that an author has expended a minimal degree of skill, judgement and labour to achieve a result. This concept is most problematic when it comes to factual works and compilations as most maps on electronic databases are. In a compilation the author must demonstrate a skill in selecting the facts and their arrangement in presentation.
Maps may thus fall within the definition of a ‘drawing’ as well as within the category of literary work of s.10(1). If maps are entitled to protection both as artistic and literary works, this introduces uncertainty, particularly in relation to a number of statutory defences to infringement and the operation of the compulsory licensing scheme. These differences indicate that there is a need for legislative amendment to clarify the exact legal status of maps (Ricketson 1984: 123).
There is considerable doubt about the data gathered by remote sensing satellites, for example, whether the stream of digits from a Landsat satellite in its raw form is a ‘work’ and merits copyright protection. To decide whether raw data and databases qualify for copyright protection there is a need to assess each case and the degree of originality. Because a subjective test is used seemingly similar facts have produced different results. Copyright did not exist in a listing of possible winners of horse races to be held the next day (Smith’s Newspapers Ltd. v Labour Daily [1925] NSWStRp 15; [1925] 25 SR(NSW) 593) or a compilation of prescribed forms (Sampson v Brokensha & Shaw Ltd. [1935] WALawRp 13; (1935) 37 WALR 90) whereas there was copyright in a list of birth and deaths announcements in a newspaper (Fairfax (John )& Sons Pty. Ltd. v Australian Consolidated Press [1960] SR (NSW) 413) and a chronological list of football match fixtures (Football League Ltd. v Littlewoods Pools Ltd [1959] 1 Ch 637, [1959] 2 All ER 546).
In terms of maps and electronic databases it is said that the originality requirement is ‘low’ under Australian law with little or no scope for a cartographer to create a truly ‘original result’. Here, it seems that there is much scope for original legal interpretations, however! In strict terms, however, GISs aim for accuracy and standardisation in order to make the database more accessible (Eldred 1995: 14). The information in the database make it valuable and the arrangement, selection and format that gives the work sufficient originality. Ironically, the more comprehensive the database the less scope there is to lay a claim to copyright on the basis of originality in the selection of information in the database as there may be nothing left to select (Karjala 1994 cited in Eldred 1995).
The storage of databases on-line raises a number of other issues. If works which are already protected under copyright are stored in an electronic format, it appears that the work remains protected. However, collated information in a database is a more vexed problem. While it is clear that the compilation of information is entitled to protection as a ‘literary work’ a court must also be satisfied that there is a reasonable degree of originality in the compilation.
There is a debate in Australia as to whether computer screen displays constitute a reproduction in material form. The Copyright Law Review Committee (1993) is of the view that screen displays are neither a reproduction in material form of works stored in a computer memory nor a public performance of such a work. Screen displays are transitory and not considered to be in material form.
The leading Australian map case is Sands & McDougall Pty. Ltd v Robinson [1917] HCA 14; (1917) 23 CLR 49. A plaintiff produced an original map which was used by the defendant to create another product. Despite changing the presentation, corrected errors and making amendments the High Court found that it was nevertheless a reproduction of a substantial part of the plaintiff’s map in material form. The hard question of ‘how substantial’ was not addressed, however.
In the UK a person is not free to appropriate the results of an earlier author’s labour and skill (Kelly v Morris [1866] UKLawRpEq 55; (1866) LR 1 Eq. 697). In that case the defendant was held to have infringed copyright when he sent out excerpts from a directory to canvassers to check the accuracy of entries and then used these in his own compilation. Protection in that case goes only to the originality of the effort. These principles have been endorsed in Waterlow Publishing Ltd. v Rose (1989) 17 IPR 493.
The Federal courts in the US term these as ‘sweat of the brow’ or ‘industrious collection’ cases and have rejected the principles in Feist Publications Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc. [1991] USSC 50; (1991) 111 SCt. 1282, 113 Led. 2d. 358, (1991) 20 IPR 129. The court’s view was that there was no copyright subsisting in a ‘garden variety White Pages directory’ because the selection, coordination and arrangement of the compilation could not qualify to be in any way original work. But in Bell South Advertising and Publishing Co. v Donnelly Information Publishing Inc. [1993] USCA11 1579; 999 F.2d. 1436 involving the copying of Yellow Pages of a telephone book, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to copyright in those elements of the work which demonstrated original arrangement and coordination. The scope of protection for factual compilations was again raised in Mason v Montgomery Data Inc. [1992] USCA5 1597; 967 F.2d. 135 (5th Cir. 1992) where at first instance the court held that the plaintiff’s maps were not subject to copyright protection. The plaintiff had produced maps based on USGS maps and the defendant used the plaintiff’s maps as part of its GIS, albeit with modifications and amendments. On appeal, the process in the Hodge Mason maps were said to easily exceed the modicum of creativity needed for copyright protection to exist. That “the idea and its final expression are separated by Mason’s efforts and creativity that are entitled to protection from competitors” (at 140). However, the Appeal Court did not decide on the critical ‘sweat’ question but remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration.
The premise of the draft report of the Australian Copyright Law Review Committee (1993) was that electronically stored databases are not different from non-electronic databases and therefore should raise no new copyright issues. Non-original databases do not qualify for copyright protection because their selection and arrangement were not sufficiently original. If the Feist doctrine were to be followed in Australia, it would make it more difficult to argue that publicly available facts stored in a computer’s memory had sufficient originality to attract copyright.
In 1992 the European Union issued a draft Directive to harmonise database protection. The definition of a database includes the hardware necessary for the operation of the database but excludes any computer programme used in the making or operation of the database. A new right of ‘unfair extraction’ allows creators to prevent unauthorised extraction or use of contents of a database for commercial purposes. However, this right relates only to electronic databases, and extends for fifteen years from date of first availability to the public.
After Feist in the US there have been fears of an unbridled ‘free rider’ problem by those who will take the fruits of a database owner’s investments. On the other hand, some believe that Feist marked a return to sound copyright principles since this decision reduces the possibility of putting monopoly power in the hands of a select group (see discussion in Eldred 1995).
That electronic databases have a legitimate claim to protection is undisputed. However, the present framework offers uncertain protection. With little or no protection, there will be insufficient incentives to encourage the development of databases. Too much protection might kill interest, innovation and the open dissemination of information. Traditional copyright law attempts to strike a balance between rewarding authors and safeguarding the public interest in the free flow of information. Pam Eldred (1995: 17) suggests that the difficulty in applying the idea-expression principle to electronic databases “may prove to be one of the signposts which tells us that its time to put the indicator on and try a different route”.
There is an adage in copyright law that if it is “worth copying it is worth protecting”. But in an electronic environment copying a file of 0’s and 1’s is not much fun until one uses a computer program to translate it into a useable form. The solution to the copying problem thus, is a technical rather than legal one. An electronic database could be placed somewhere on the Internet or computer Bulletin Board for a user to copy a small sample of the database and if a user deems it suitable the user pays the full fee to copy the entire database. The user may also be registered to receive further upgrades on payment of a fee. This may solve the problem of unauthorised use as well as give fair returns to producers of data.
The next suggestion is to ask whether copyright is the correct sort of protection for electronic databases. It is argued that copyright may be an inappropriate tool for protecting electronic databases because it lasts the lifetime of the author plus a further 50 years. For written material the lifetime and 50 year minimum gives an author a fair deal and fair returns and the public benefits as well — witness Waltzing Matilda and Beethoven’s symphonies which now provide great use and enjoyment to the public. But, one is not so sure with electronic databases. If there is a public law regime which expends time, money and energy protecting intellectual property there must be a return to the public purse for such expenditure, otherwise some other solution needs to be found. Beneficial returns to the public purse may be illustrated by patent law.
An inventor is given a monopoly on inventions in the form of a patent for 14, 16, 20 years depending on the product (See Patents Act (Cth.) s. 68). After that the invention gets into the public domain. This method has proven very workable in the highly competitive pharmaceutical’s industry with the result that there is more and quicker turnover of inventions and innovation in the industry. Similarly, there should be a short period of protection of electronic databases which could be licensed to cutting-edge business users to provide the incentives for further development. After this period of protection, the database should move into the public domain when it still has some useful life left. The use of copyright protection for such databases should therefore end because it favours ‘authors’ without public benefit. A more balanced approach to private and public rights — to profits and to access in the public domain respectively, would be more beneficial to the community at large and would help stem piracy, unauthorised use and civil disobedience in copying electronic data.
The conclusion suggests that the use of data and information in a computer age has brought about a whole new way of thinking and doing things. At the same time, it has brought about new legal relationships between the creators of data products and the users of such products and as well as third parties. Because data and information are now treated as marketable assets, there is much more at stake, not simply in terms of economic returns but also the legal liability in the use of information products and the ownership of such property. While the market-place would put a value of data and information, it will be the courts who will decide who has a better right to a claim for damages and loss. The legal issues emanating from these relationships emerge from how a society views the new information technology and what sorts of policy and legislative instruments are put in place as a response to moderate between data providers and data users. This gives rise to an information culture that may be unique to that particular society.
Antenucci, J.C. Brown, K., Croswell, P.L., Kevany, M.J. with Archer, H. (1991) Geographic Information Systems. A Guide to the Technology, New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.
Aronoff, S. (1989) Geographic Information Systems: A Management Perspective, Ottawa: WDL Publications.
Australia (1991) Australia as an Information Society: Grasping New Paradigms, Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee for Long-Term Strategies, (Chair: Hon. B.O. Jones), Canberra: AGPS, (May), 82 pp.
Australia Copyright Law Review Committee (1993) Draft Report on Computer Software Protection, Canberra: AGPS.
Australian Land Information Council (ALIC) (1990b) Copyright, Royalties and Data Use Agreements. Issues in Land Information Management Paper No. 2, Canberra: ALIC.
Australian Land Information Council (ALIC) (1990c) Charging for Land Information. Issues in Land Information Management Paper No. 3, Canberra: ALIC.
Blakemore, M. (1990) ‘Sharing data — whose, why, how?’ Proceedings of the AGI 1990 Conference, London: Association of Geographic Information.
Cho, G. (1994) ‘GIS and the law: New opportunities and challenges’ in Bishop, I. (ed.) Proceedings of Resource Technology ‘94: New Opportunities Best Practice, September 26-30, 1994, Melbourne, Australia,: Centre for GIS, University of Melbourne, pp. 699-713.
Cho, G. (1995) ‘Access to spatial information: Principles, practices and legal responses in Australia’, Brunnstein, K. & Sint, P.P. (eds.) Intellectual Property Rights and New Technologies, Proceedings of the KnowRight’95 Conference, Vienna, 21 - 25 August, Wien & München: R. Oldenbourg, pp. 273 - 278.
Copyright Convergence Group (1994) Highways to Change. Copyright in the New Communications Environment, Report of the Copyright Convergence Group, Canberra: AGPS.
Davies, K. (1991) ‘AM/FM/GIS Keynote Address’, AURISA News v. 38, pp. 21-22.
Eldred, P. (1995) ‘Geographic information systems and copyright: Are we on the right road?’ WALIS News No. 6 (March), pp. 13-18.
Epstein, E.F. (1991) ‘Legal aspects of GIS’ in Maguire, D.J., Goodchild, M.F. & Rhind, D.W. (eds.) Geographical Information Systems, London: Longman, pp. 489-502.
Jens, Gaster (1995) ‘Authors’ Rights and Neighbouring rights in the Information society’, in Brunnstein, K. & Sint, P.P. (eds.) Intellectual Property Rights and New Technologies, Proceedings of the KnowRight’95 Conference, Vienna, 21 - 25 August, Wien & München: R. Oldenbourg, pp. 11-30.
Hughes, G. (1994) ‘Electric Blues: Unresolved issues with copyright and computer software’, Parliamentary Research Service Background Paper No. 11, 1994, Canberra; Department of the Parliamentary Library, 19 pp.
Karjala, D. (1994) ‘Preliminary thoughts on copyright in electronic maps,’ paper presented at the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) Conference on Law and Information Policy for Spatial Databases, 28-29 October 1994.
Millhouse, D. (1994) ‘A merchant banker’s view of GIS’, AURISA News v. 55, pp. 1, 6-11.
Oosthuizen, P. (1994) ‘AISIST Spatial Information Survey, Price Waterhouse Urwick’, AURISA News v.53, p.14.
Ricketson, S. (1984) The Law of Intellectual Property, Sydney: The Law Book Company Ltd.
Vickers, A.J.M. (1994) ‘’Whose Maps. Using and paying for digital map data. An overview of legal and ethical issues facing Hong Kong from an international perspective’, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic, unpub. paper, 15 pp.
Westermeier, J.T. (1994) ‘Sweat of the brow protection survives’, in GIS Law v.2(1) pp. 1-3.
Wolf, D.B. (1993) ‘New landscapes in the copyright protection for maps: Mason v Montgomery Data Inc. in GIS Law v.1(4) pp. 14-17.
[*] School of Resource, Environmental & Heritage Sciences
Faculty of Applied Science
University of Canberra
PO Box 1, Belconnen, ACT 2616
[1] BA (Hons), MA, PhD, LLB. Barrister & Solicitor, Supreme Court of A.C.T. and High Court of Australia, Barrister, Supreme Court of NSW. Senior Lecturer in Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Law, Faculty of Applied Science, University of Canberra.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/1995/14.html