Sweat of the brow

In a traditional English idiom, the "sweat of one's brow" refers to the effort expended in labor, and the value created thereby. ["Merriam-Webster's Third International Dictionary"] [citeweb|url=http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.page.sh?page=1457|pages=1457|accessdate=2007-05-30|work=Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 ed)|title=Sweat, v. t.|publisher=ARTFL Project] The phrase is famously used in English translations of sourcetext|source=Bible|version=King James|book=Genesis|chapter=3|verse=19. [cite web|url=http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/ssresults.asp?txtSearchString=Genesis+3|accessdate=2007-05-30|title=New Living Translation|publisher=Tyndale House Publishers, inc.|quote=By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat] The intellectual property law doctrine referred to in English as "sweat of the brow", which relates chiefly to copyright law, takes its name from this idiom.

Mainly used in common law jurisdictions with copyright law, especially in the United Kingdom. According to this doctrine, an author gains rights through simple diligence during the creation of a work, such as a database, or a directory. Substantial creativity or "originality" is not required. The United States rejected this doctrine in the 1991 United States Supreme Court case "Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service"; [ussc|499|340|1991] up until then it had been upheld in a number of US copyright cases.

Under a "sweat of the brow" doctrine, the creator of a copyrighted work, even if it is completely unoriginal, is entitled to have his effort and expense protected, and no one else may use such a work without permission, but must instead recreate the work by independent research or effort. The classic example is a telephone directory. In a "Sweat of the brow" jurisdiction, such a directory may not be copied, but instead a competitor must independently collect the information to issue a competing directory. The same rule generally applies to databases and lists of facts.

Under the "Feist" rule in the US, mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and thus not protected by copyright, no matter how much work went into collating them. The arrangement of a collection may be original, but not if it is "simple and obvious" such as a list in alphabetical or chronological order.
Civil law jurisdictions have traditionally used the similar but not identical concept of droit d'auteur. On a European level, some Guidelines of European Parliament tend to harmonize the protection of Intellectual Property throughout Europe and the doctrine gains more influence. A good example is the Databases Directive 96/9/EC - in this Directive, the member states of the EU are obliged to confer protection on non-original databases, that is on those which embody no creativity, but are a consequence of substantial investment (financial, labour etc.). [ [http://www.bonnanwalt.de/rg/internet/law/eu/RiLi96-9-eg.html EU Richtlinie 96/9/EG] (German language link)]

ee also

*labour theory of value
*sweat equity
*money tree

References