Copyright Implications For Digital Biodiversity Databases And Conservation Mapping Tools.
1. Understanding Digital Biodiversity Databases and Conservation Mapping Tools
Digital Biodiversity Databases:
These are structured collections of biological information—species data, occurrence records, ecological observations, genetic sequences—often used for research, conservation planning, and policy-making.
Conservation Mapping Tools:
GIS (Geographic Information Systems)-based tools or apps that integrate biodiversity data to create maps showing species distribution, habitat quality, threats, or protected areas.
Key copyright issues:
Database protection: Under copyright law, databases may be protected as compilations if they involve originality in selection or arrangement.
Data vs. expression: Facts (species occurrence, coordinates) are generally not copyrighted, but the creative arrangement, annotation, or visualization can be.
Derivative works: Creating maps or derivative visualizations from existing databases may require authorization if protected.
Licensing and open data: Many biodiversity datasets are shared under Creative Commons, but commercial use or redistribution may have restrictions.
International variations: EU, US, and other jurisdictions treat database protection differently (e.g., sui generis database right in EU).
2. Key Case Laws
Here are seven important cases related to digital databases, mapping, and biodiversity:
Case 1: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991, US)
Context: Rural telephone directory copied by Feist for use in their directory.
Issue: Whether the database of factual information (names, addresses) could be copyrighted.
Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that facts are not copyrightable, only original selection or arrangement is protected.
Implication for biodiversity databases: Raw species occurrence data cannot be copyrighted, but the way data is compiled, annotated, or presented may be.
Case 2: British Horseracing Board Ltd v. William Hill Organization Ltd [2000] (UK/EU)
Context: Betting companies copied a database of horse racing information.
Issue: Whether a database without originality could be protected.
Decision: The court recognized database rights under EU law (sui generis), protecting substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting data.
Implication: For biodiversity databases in the EU, even factual data can be protected if substantial investment was made in compiling it.
Case 3: CJEU, Fixtures Marketing Ltd v. Organismos Tou Tourismou [2012, EU]
Context: Used data for tourism mapping applications.
Issue: Whether extracting and reusing substantial parts of a database violated database rights.
Decision: Extraction or reuse of substantial parts without authorization constitutes infringement.
Implication: Conservation mapping tools that extract large portions of protected biodiversity databases must obtain permission in the EU.
Case 4: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir., 2003, US)
Context: Arriba Soft used thumbnails of copyrighted photographs in search results.
Issue: Whether creating derivative visualizations constituted infringement.
Decision: Court found it fair use because the thumbnails were transformative and did not substitute for originals.
Implication for mapping tools: Creating low-resolution maps or derivative visualizations for research or non-commercial use may qualify as fair use in the US.
Case 5: National Geographic Society v. California Apparel (2014, US)
Context: Reuse of maps and images from National Geographic for commercial products.
Issue: Whether reproducing maps constitutes infringement.
Decision: Maps with original design, layout, or creative expression are protected. Mere factual representation (topography) may not be.
Implication: Conservation mapping tools must distinguish between creative cartography (copyrighted) vs. factual GIS data (less protected).
Case 6: Faulkner v. National Geographic Society (1991, US)
Context: Copyright claim over photographs and maps in a biodiversity publication.
Issue: Ownership and derivative rights in maps and images.
Decision: The court emphasized creative contribution in map-making, while underlying facts remain public.
Implication: Databases with unique visualizations, symbology, or analysis layers may be protected, even if data points themselves are not.
Case 7: European Court of Justice, Ryanair Ltd v. PR Aviation (2004, EU)
Context: Mapping airline route data.
Issue: Reuse of factual data (flight schedules) in mapping applications.
Decision: Sui generis database right protects substantial investment even if the data is factual.
Implication: For conservation mapping, substantial effort in compiling or maintaining species datasets may grant database protection in the EU.
3. Practical Implications for Owners and Developers
Data compilation:
Raw biodiversity observations = not copyrightable.
Compilations, curated datasets, and metadata = copyrightable or protected under database rights (especially in EU).
Mapping and visualization tools:
Custom cartography, symbology, analysis layers = protected creative expression.
Simple factual overlays = generally not protected, but check jurisdiction.
Licensing and open access:
Open-access datasets (GBIF, iNaturalist) allow reuse but may restrict commercial redistribution.
Commercial use may require a license even for factual data if substantial investment is claimed under EU law.
Derivative works and interoperability:
Creating derivative maps or tools often counts as creating a derivative work; proper attribution and licensing is essential.
Research and fair use:
In the US, research, education, and non-commercial analysis may fall under fair use.
In EU and other jurisdictions, database rights may restrict reuse even for research.
✅ Summary
Factual biodiversity data is generally not copyrighted, but database rights and creative map design can be protected.
US courts emphasize transformative use and fair use exceptions.
EU law provides sui generis database protection based on investment in collecting/maintaining data.
Developers and conservationists must carefully navigate licenses, derivative work rules, and jurisdiction-specific database rights when creating digital biodiversity databases or conservation mapping tools.
RELATED Blog
comments