Historically, copyright law, from its birth, depended directly on the evolution of technology. It is common knowledge in the theory of copyright law that the invention of printing constituted a landmark for copyright law accompanied by the cultural and philosophical trends which followed. Namely, forerunners of today’s rights were the so called “privileges” that were granted by the political authorities firstly to printers and to publishers and later on to authors.
Technological evolution contributed not only to the enactment of copyright law but also to its formation. Technological developments made possible the reproduction of works without the author's mediation and payment resulting in the need for immediate provision of protection to the authors against the threat/danger of receiving no payment for their work. At the same time, due to technological advancements and social and economical needs, new forms of protected works were created, like photography, cinematographic works, videotapes, computer programs, databases, multimedia, together with new means of publicizing or distributing works through the radio, television and the Internet.
In particular, it is worth noting the following in relation to specific new technology works which are protected under copyright law.
Computer Programs
Law 2121/1993 harmonized Greek law with the EU Directive 250/91 on the legal protection of computer programs. Computer programs together with their preparatory design material are considered literary works. A computer program is protected in any form of expression, whether it is in machine code or in source code. An explicit definition of the computer program does not exist in the law, following the example of the Directive, in order for the concept to be open to adaptations that might arise due to technological advancements. Ideas and principles which underlie any element of the computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces are not protected by copyright. The preparatory design material of a program is protected according to the preamble of the above mentioned Directive “…provided that the nature of the preparatory work is such that a computer program can result from it at a later stage…”. Greek case-law has accepted that in the general concept of software are included: a) a computer program, b) description of the program (preparatory material) and c) the accompanying material. According to Greek courts, the description of a program includes the preparation stage which is part of the general idea of the software and is defined by the standard instructions as a complete representation of procedure in speech, graphic or other form, the elements of which suffice for the setting of a series of commands, that will constitute the final program and through their help the final preparation will take place. The accompanying material or documentation of application includes user instructions, comments, remarks and notes explaining the handling of the program (Multimember Court of First Instance 18201/1998 Board of Court of Appeals 2949/2003). Typical cases of preparatory material are the list of commands and the flowchart. In the Internet environment protection can also be granted to browsers, search engines, e-mail software and links.
Databases
The Greek legislation, despite the fact that the initial statute already included reference to databases, has now adopted (article 2 paragraph 2a) the definition for a database that is set in the EU Directive 96/9 which incorporated with law 2819/2000.
According to this definition, database shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means. It should be clarified that in order for the electronic databases to be included in the above mentioned definition, it is not required to store the different items which comprise them into a material carrier.
It is of no interest, to begin with, whether the contents of the database are protected by copyright law or not. It is not necessary for the data to be copyright material or to have copyright contents or to be of the same kind. The same protection is equally enjoyed by the legal database of the National Printing Office, which includes laws made public in the Official Gazette, and as we saw above are not protected as such by copyright, and by the Heal Link database which contains protected scientific publications.
In order for a database to be protected by copyright it is required according to law the selection or arrangement of its contents, to constitute the author’s intellectual creation. No other criterion is required for the provision of protection. The copyright protection shall not extend to the contents of databases and shall be without prejudice any rights subsisting in those contents themselves. Subsequently, in a database, containing works protected by copyright e.g. photographs, the protection of the database is independent of the photographs’ protection.
Regarding databases a sui generis right has been recognised to the maker of databases, meaning the individual or legal entity who takes the initiative and bears the risk of investment. The term “maker” was intentionally used instead of the term “producer” so as to discern from the database contractor that could realize it. The purpose of the enactment of this special right is the protection of the financial and professional investment of the maker against the expropriation of the investment’s results by third parties.
In particular, in art. 45A it is presumed that: “The maker of a database has the right, which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents, to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database”.
It is not necessary for the maker of the database to be the same as its creator, although this cannot be ruled out. According to our national law only an individual entity can be considered a creator, while the “maker” can be either an individual or a legal entity. The creator has the absolute and exclusive right that is rendered in art. 3 of the law. More specifically: “The creator of databases has the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit: a) the temporary or permanent reproduction of the database by any means and in any form, in whole or in part, b) the translation, adaptation of other alteration of the database, c) any distribution of the database or copies of it to the public, d) any communication, display or presentation of the database to the public, e) any reproduction, distribution, communication, display or presentation to the public of the results of the actions mentioned in element b)”. When the creator and the maker of the database is the same person, then double protection provided in articles 45A and 3 of Law 2121/1993 is enjoyed.
Multimedia
The law does not explicitly mention multimedia. Their wide development and broad use though, brought into the scene the issue of their protection based on copyright law. The practical problems that arise can be reduced to the difficulty of their classification in one of the traditional categories of works protected with copyright law. Usually, the different creators are easily located and the associations between them can be regulated based on contracts. However, finding the object of the right is not enough if the subject of the right cannot be identified, that it is to say the category of copyright work. In theory, multimedia can either be identified as audiovisual works or as databases. Multimedia can be defined as “commodities or services which combine in one carrier and in digital form, at least two different kinds of works or data (texts, sounds, images e.t.c) while at the same time offer their user the ability to interact with their content through the use of a software”. (I. Stamatoudi, “The protection of multimedia as software, databases or audiovisual works” (2001) Private Law Chronicles (Chronika Idiotikou Dikaiou) pp. 785-791 and I. Stamatoudi, Multimedia products as copyright works, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002).
Web Pages
In the same frame of reference lies the protection of web pages as autonomous works. To start with, in most cases a web page will contain other works, like software, images, texts and sounds, which will be independently protected if they meet the requirements of the law (e.g. originality). A work is equally protected whether it is integrated in some physical carrier (e.g. printed form or CD), or is in a web site (e.g. a photograph is equally protected whether it is printed in a newspaper or presented in the website of the newspaper). The use of every online work is subject to the provisions of the law in the same way as when it is available in any form outside the web. The web page itself can be autonomously protected as work even if it does not fall under one of the categories of works mentioned in article 2 of Law 2121/1993. In some cases it could come under the concept of the database while alternatively some parts (of which it is composed) could be protected, if they meet the requirements of the law.
The host of the web page and legal owner who is usually the same as the one who registers the domain name, does not acquire de jure some special right, like the one the maker of the database has, unless the web page in question falls under the definition of the database. Whatever rights the owner has over the contents of the web page will stem either from the fact that the owner himself has created the independent works and consequently he is the right holder of copyright, or through contracts of transfer of the economic rights that he will have signed with the initial right holders, in which case he will be the right holder of related rights.
It should be noted that, ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts are not protected with copyright law.
Some products not protected with copyright law could possibly be protected otherwise e.g. with industrial property law or unfair competition law.
The basic difference between copyright law and industrial property law is that the first protects the expression of an idea, if it is done in a way conceivable by the human senses, while the second protects the ideas if they are new and in the case of inventions open to industrial application.
