The National Swimming Pool Foundation (NSPF) has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, against three Nebraska health departments alleging copyright infringement of materials from the NSPF Certified Pool/Spa Operator Handbook. According to the article, the NSPF is a non-profit organization that offers certification courses for public pool operators to help prevent illness, drowning, and accidents. The infringed materials were registered by NSPF with the U.S. Copyright Office and as a result, infringers may be held liable for damages and attorney’s fee.
The departments being accused for using the materials are the Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services, the Douglas County Department of Health, the Lincoln/Lancaster County Department of Health, and individuals within those departments. Thomas M. Lachocki, the CEO of NSPF said “It is unfortunate that we are forced to file suit to recover damages against agencies and individuals in a profession we have worked so hard to help. Any damages received by NSPF beyond out attorney fees will be directed to our grant budget to fund projects to protect citizens.” The handbook includes information regarding the latest on pool water contamination from the CDC, chemical testing methods, information about health benefits, and guidelines from the National Plasters Council on pool resurfacing, among other info which can be found here.
It bothers me to see a non-profit organization sue health departments for infringing on materials that I’d consider facts. As soon as I read this article I thought of the discussion we had in class about scientific research and how it should be freely available for others to use and work on. I understand that it takes time and money to conduct such research and that it was the NSPF’s initiative to compile a handbook, but isn’t copyright supposed to be about creative works? Most of the content in the handbook are guidelines, testing procedures, or other factual information.
I don’t think the NSPF will have much of a strong argument to win the case. The lawsuit itself is going against its purpose to provide and communicate research information between state and county health departments and leading environmental health officials. Copyright laws and regulations need to be re-evaluated for society’s best interests.
I think this is definitely a situation that would benefit from some sort of attributions clause being standard in the law like the public licenses offered by creative commons because I don’t think that NSPF would have minded if the infringes requested to use the information for their own purposes as long as the cited properly because it is free publicity for their organization.
I agree with atr257 in that perhaps a citation would have saved them some trouble. However, this case comes to question what is creative work again. If it is just facts just like a telephone directory, then it is not copyrightable (both just needs research to gather data). How does one gauge this issue when it seems so subjective.
Since when is it OK to take other organization’s intellectual property? Since when is it OK to use government funds to subsidize a government course to prevent the free market from offering the most current courses? Since when is it OK to pay taxes to agencies who don’t have the ability to create good materials themselves where they have to take it from others?
I understand that using the material from the handbook without the NSPF’s authorization is market harm and I’m not arguing against that. The question I had in mind relates back to the summary of the course: “What is really at stake in the copyright battles? Does our law reward profit, control, or culture? Should culture be owned? Does it even make sense to call it “intellectual property”?”
In the telephone directory case, Feist v. Rural, cited by Gloria, the court stated:
“Because Rural’s white pages lack the requisite originality, Feist’s use of the listings cannot constitute infringement. This decision should not be construed as demeaning Rural’s efforts in compiling its directory, but rather as making clear that copyright rewards originality, not effort.” http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1195336269698056315
I think NSPF’s case will be an interesting one to follow because it will provide us a better understanding of how the court interprets copyright law in terms of facts and research information.