Originally Posted by Yorkshiretea
That's what the FA and Premier League thought Rob and they lost, imagine that, an official body that actually owns nothing! That why the had to bring in new rules and licences for photo's and reporting from grounds. Even in publishing you're allowed to use other peoples charts etc as long as you don't subvert the data and credit it.
If I was Peter I'd be giving everyone the tools to make doing leagues and results easier and building partnerships rather than banging on about moral rights. As I said before some of the lads have put 30yrs into the sport, that deserves some respect.
Without speculation going too far, what the FA lost on was the copyright of publicly available facts... match schedules and results, which anyone going to a game, or looking up TV schedules etc could get. Football is a publicly aired sport, with live and on the ground audiences, so it's a little hard to copyright what could be obtained with ease, and no work. That's the difference (I believe... but I'm not going to throw it over to my legal reps because they are in the order of £150 an hour... I leave that for when we regularly have to deal with them for licensing my company's IP)...
Shooting isn't a publicly aired or watched sport. Aside from that, the winner isn't the one who puts down the greatest amount of targets either. Nor is it easy to watch one lane and get a result, like it is a football match. To get a result from a shooting competition, you need to collate all the scores, order them in class or grade, and that's without even scoring paper targets being considered, which is even more work, and not something an audience viewer can do.
The football data case was rejected by the ECJ because it considered the work involved in arranging the data (schedules) did not take any creativity, it was merely just re-arranging data. Shooting results however do change the data. The person who wins A grade may hit more targets than someone in AA. The person who shoots a springer doing likewise may hit more than someone using a PCP, yet the overall title may change. You can't just take the hits on the targets and say X person is the winner and Y Z etc are 2nd and 3rd.
Applying those principles here, the ECJ concluded that you ignore the intellectual effort and skill in creating the data itself. So it is irrelevant if selecting or arranging the data involves adding important significance to the data. Also, the significant labour and skill required to set up the database is in itself insufficient unless the author expresses originality in the selection or arrangement of the data.
Shooting organisations do express originality in the arrangement of their data. HFT and FT change how people are ordered in their results depending on their rules. That's an original creation. Benchrest does the same. And it changes depending on what original rules of the governing body are applied. If you stack up the hits on targets and then apply the rules of the BFTA, or the UKAHFT, the results will change, because there are different rules. Shooter A may win one competition, but not another. It's not the same as football where the team who scores the most amount of goals wins. There aren't different types of goals and footballs and different levels of footballers kicking balls.
The case isn't over though, it's now referred back to the UK Court of Appeal, with that above guidance which I quoted. Probably irrelevant though as shooting results aren't quite the same as football results or schedules.