Jeff Clark raises an important question in his March 4th posting.
Section 2(1) defines 'collective work' as "a work, such as a periodical
issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions,
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled
into a collective whole."
Section 2(3) defines 'compilation' as "a work formed by the collection
and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected,
coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a
whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term `compilation'
includes collective works."
The definition of 'databases' in section 2(5)defines 'database' and
provides a listing of exclusions in 2(5(B):
"The term database does not include any of the following:
(i) A work of authorship, other than a compilation or a collective
work." (bill cites all taken from thomas.loc.gov, enter H.R. 3261)
By citing compilations or collective works as an exception to what is
excluded from the definition of database, the act indeed includes these
works within its broad scope, albeit in a roundabout and clumsy manner.
This particular concern was addressed in a joint ALA-AALL-ARL-SLA letter
filed in opposition to the bill last Fall (available at
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/lt09042003.html):
"Relation to the Copyright Act. For the first time, the draft bill now
explicitly encompasses periodical issues, which are themselves covered
under the Copyright Act. This raises fundamental questions about the
relationship between this bill and the copyright law. It appears that if
this draft were to become law, the very same action (such as an
interlibrary loan) would be lawful under the Copyright Act but a
potential violation of the draft database legislation. This new approach
will cast a shadow over all of the exemptions currently in the Copyright
Act, thus necessitating a re-litigation of those provisions and a
court-provided clarification of which law governs when."
The implications of this double coverage would be significant if the
bill is passed and allowed to stand, it's just one more reason to oppose
an otherwise very bad bill.
Samuel Trosow
Assistant Professor
University of Western Ontario
Faculty of Law / Faculty of Information & Media Studies