Database publishers have often had a difficult time protecting their database against unscrupulous people who come along and copy it, place their own name on it and make money off it.  The courts have often been reluctant to protect databases as copyrighted works and, in the rare instance where they do, the courts usually afford them such thin protection as to allow just about any copying so long as it does not result in an identical copy.  As a result, database owners have been somewhat reluctant to attempt to enforce what rights they may have in their database in the courts.

But every so often a database publisher comes along who feels they have a good enough case to justify the risk of bringing their case before the court.  SaleTraq is just such a publisher.

SalesTraq compiles, arranges and owns a database of about 17,000 different models of residential properties in the Las Vegas area.  The database contains not only the usual information one might find in a database of residential properties (such as floor plans, measurements, features and location), but also includes the properties’ key attributes as determined by SalesTraq.  SalesTraq distributes the database to its customers through a fee-based subscription that is accessible through the SalesTraq website, and by providing the database on CD-ROM or DVD to its subscribers on a monthly basis.

Defendants Zyskowski, and his company, devMarketing, purchased a six-month subscription to the SalesTraq database.  Shortly thereafter devMarketing started up its own website where it provided access on a fee-based subscription basis to a very similar (if not identical) database.  devMarketing’s database includes not only the same information as the SalesTraq database, but also the key attributes feature found in the SalesTraq database.

SaleTraq sued devMarketing and Zyskowski and the defendants then moved to dismiss SalesTraq’s claims of copyright infringement, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and State law clams of commercial misappropriation, unjust enrichment and breach of nonexclusive license.  On June 10th, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada sided with SalesTraq and rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss for all but one claim, the CFAA claim.

First, the defendants argued that SalesTraq’s copyright claims must be dismissed because the database is “comprised of uncopyrightable facts or ideas as opposed to copyrightable expression.”  The court found these arguments somewhat persuasive and said that it might have agreed with defendants and dismissed the copyright infringement claims but for the fact that the defendants also copied the key attributes in the SalesTraq database, which the court concluded was sufficiently creative and therefore sufficient to state a claim for copyright infringement. 

The defendants also unsuccessfully claimed that SalesTraq failed to comply with the Section 411(a) requirement (that copyright claims be registered prior to initiating a copyright infringement suit) because it registered a 2008 version of its database rather than the 2007 version that was at issue in the case.  The court explained that numerous authorities support the proposition that “registration of a factual compilation permits a complainant to assert an infringement claim on an underlying work that is owned by the complainant.”

As to the State law claims, which defendants argued were preempted by section 301(a) of the Copyright Act, the court concluded that such claims were not preempted because SalesTraq’s state law claims included not only an assertion of improper copying (which is covered by the copyright law) but also the extra element of improper use (which is not).

Defendants’ motion was not a total loss, however.  Defendants did prevail in their attempt to get the CFAA claims dismissed.  SalesTraq alleged that defendants violated Title 18, Section 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA when defendants obtained a license to access the website but exceeded their authorized access by copying content from the website and using it for commercial purposes.  The court disagreed, explaining that the defendants merely misused information that was properly accessed, but did not exceed their authorized access to obtain the restricted information.

Of course, SalesTraq is cannot declare total victory quite yet.  This was merely a motion to dismiss.  Unless the parties settle the case, the court must still decide whether SalesTraq should prevail on it’s copyright infringement and state law claims.  However, given the court’s opinion here the defendants would be wise not to roll the dice again.