Template:Derived information: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
Actually, no: let’s do go there. If the {{confiprov|information}} in question not, in the first place, ''mine'' — that is to say, it isn’t [[intellectual property]] in the first place, then the question arises ''why'' I should be able to stop you deriving your own intellectual property out of it. This boils down to whether it was just secret data, but didn’t have any proprietary qualities, or whether it can be somehow regarded as proprietary, ''owned'' information — the articulation of which required some kind of creative impulse.  
Actually, no: let’s do go there. If the {{confiprov|information}} in question not, in the first place, ''mine'' — that is to say, it isn’t [[intellectual property]] in the first place, then the question arises ''why'' I should be able to stop you deriving your own intellectual property out of it. This boils down to whether it was just secret data, but didn’t have any proprietary qualities, or whether it can be somehow regarded as proprietary, ''owned'' information — the articulation of which required some kind of creative impulse.  


If it is only data, it does not have the quality [[intellectual property]] at all, so the [[receiving party]]’s act in deriving some new type of creative work out of it is a novel thing, owes nothing to the [[discloser]]’s disclosure as such, builds upon no [[intellectual property]] of the discloser, and should not, therefore, be restricted at all. ''What loss could there be?'' The data still cannot be disclosed to anyone in a way that would betray the discloser’s confidence, but the derivation may well achieve exactly that: Say you give me a secret data document of a thousand characters on it (i.e., [[data]], and not [[intellectual property]] as such), on condition that I keep it confidential. Let’s say I rearrange the thousand characters into a sonnet (which ''is'' susceptible of copyright protection) for argument’s sake, not even adding any new characters. Must I destroy that sonnet, or return it to you, under a confidentiality covenant? Humble report, sir, the answer is no.
If it is only data, it does not have the quality [[intellectual property]] at all, so the [[receiving party]]’s act in deriving some new type of creative work out of it is a novel thing, owes nothing to the [[discloser]]’s disclosure as such, builds upon no [[intellectual property]] of the discloser, and should not, therefore, be restricted at all. ''What loss could there be?'' The data still cannot be disclosed to anyone in a way that would betray the discloser’s confidence, but the derivation may well obliterate any confidentiality in the original document: say you give me a thousand characters of ''[[data]]'' (i.e. not [[intellectual property]] as such), on condition that I keep it confidential. And let’s say I rearrange the thousand characters into, for argument’s sake, a sonnet (which ''is'' prima facie susceptible of copyright protection — by me). Are there economic or legal justifications for obliging me to destroy that sonnet, or return it to you, under a confidentiality covenant? Humble report, sir, the answer is “no”.


If the information you have given me ''is'' copyrighted then ''the agreement you need is a [[licence]]'', not an [[NDA]]. And there you ''can'' control, within limits, by the law of copyright, the licencee’s ability to derive materia from it. <br>
On the other hand, if the information you have given me ''is'' copyrighted then ''the agreement you need is a [[licence]], not an [[NDA]]''. And, there, you ''can'' control, within limits, by the law of copyright, the licencee’s ability to derive new material from it. <br>