(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
[1](c) 1995 Associated Press
MIAMI (Nov 27, 1995 - 18:32 EST) -- A Florida company says the answer
to the problem of data ownership on the Internet lies within common
law about stealing rather than copyright law.
[2]LambGroup Inc., a Miami company that provides local tourist
information on the World Wide Web, has sued another across town for
plagiarism.
But rather than invoking traditional federal copyright law, the
company is seeking legal relief under British common law, on which
U.S. common law is based.
"We're all trying to accomplish the same end, which is trying to
protect our clients' intellectual property rights," said Montgomery
Blair Sibley, the attorney representing LambGroup. "I'm just using a
different tactic because I'm not satisfied there's any legislative
(means) at present."
The case illustrates the baffling state of copyright law in
cyberspace.
Normal copyright procedure is often applied to Internet material in
the same way it is applied to printed or broadcast information.
Documents, newspaper articles and the like are protected under federal
copyright laws even when they're on the global public data network.
In practice, though, material is often copied and republished without
penalty under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law.
In a suit filed in Dade County Circuit Court last week, LambGroup
accused [3]Guru Communications of plagiarizing a local events calendar
from its Web site. Both companies present tourism information on their
Web sites and sell ads to generate revenue.
LambGroup asked for an injunction and unspecified damages from lost
advertising and user "visits" to its site.
Guru president Chris Heuer said the suit was frivolous.
"It's a company policy: It's very important for us to respect property
rights and apply the laws of traditional intellectual property. We
don't even use anyone else's graphics," Heuer said.
LambGroup's calendar lists basic events, such as regularly scheduled
Miami Dolphins football games and a performance of The Miami Symphony
Orchestra. Guru has a similar, though smaller, selection.
The set of facts in each isn't protected under copyright law because
they are widely available, public facts.
But LambGroup attorney Sibley contends that by invoking the British
common law principle of Trover, the company can "recover damages for
property that was found but then wrongfully detained and used."
Outside experts said federal copyright protections may be more suited
for the case.
"Federal copyright preempts state law and the application of Common
Law," said Richard Marks, chairman of the American Bar Association's
computer law division. "Therefore, it's appropriate that the defendant
file a motion to dismiss."
While the individual facts in the calendar aren't protected by federal
copyright law, compilations of facts are, said Robert Penchina, a
media and intellectual property lawyer at Rogers & Wells in New York.
"The way in which a given author organized and selected the facts --
the endproduct -- that compilation is protected," Penchina said. "The
level of originality doesn't have to be great."
The Miami dispute is just the latest case involving copyright on the
Internet.
Freelance journalists have sued newspapers to get electronic rights to
their stories, magazines have sued Internet operators to prevent them
from posting their images on bulletin boards and encouraging users to
download them.