Database Directive Interpretation


Subject: Database Directive Interpretation
From: Emanuella Giavarra (ecup.secr@dial.pipex.com)
Date: ke 08 loka   1997 - 18:45:35 EEST


Dear list members,

During the last two week, I received many requests to clarify the
Directive on the legal protection of databases. Most of the questions
were related to the relationship between the copyright protection of
databases and the new sui generis protection. I would like to share my
interpretation of the Directive with you and I look forward to receiving
your comments.

I will try to clarify the protection foreseen in the Directive by giving
four scenario's:

Scenario I:
When the database selection or arrangement is original, the protection
for this selection or arrangement is copyright.

When the content of the database is original, this is also protected by
copyright (also the use).

Scenario II:
When the database selection or arrangement is original, the protection
for the selection or the arrangement is copyright.

When the content of the database is non-original, the protection against
the extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or a substantial part
of the content is the sui generis right.

Scenario III:
When the database selection or arrangement is non-original, there is no
protection for the selection or the arrangement.

When the content of the database is non-original, the protection against
the extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or a substantial part
of the content is the sui generis right.

Scenario IV:
When the database selection or arrangement is non-original, there is no
protection for the selection or the arrangement.

When the database content is original, the protection for the content is
copyright (also the use).

The specific exceptions for the parts of the database that are protected
by copyright are covered by Article 6 of the Directive. This deals with
the reproduction of databases and not with the extraction or
re-utilisation of a database. The terminologies of insubstantial and
substantial parts are also not explicit applicable for the parts of a
database that are protected by copyright. The exceptions provided under
the copyright laws of the Member States of the EU and the Berne
Convention are still applicable.

The exceptions for the parts of the database that are protected by the
sui generis right are covered by Article 9 of the Directive. Instead of
reproduction, the term extraction and re-utilisation are used. The
insubstantial and substantial parts of a database refer to the extend to
which one can extract or re-utilise parts of the database.

Article 7(5) deals with the repeated and systematic extraction and/or
re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the content of a database
implying acts which conflict with the normal exploitation of that
database or which harm the interests of the maker of a database. These
acts are not permitted by the Directive. The question is what the
legislator means with "repeated" and "systematic" and if services
provided by libraries conflict with the normal exploitation of a
database. This will very much depend on the situation. We must make sure
that some repeated and systematic use of a database is still allowed.

On 7 November 1997, EBLIDA is organising for its members a one day
workshop in London to discuss the implications of this Directive. For
more information, please contact Barbara Schleihagen at eblida@nblc.nl.

Kind regards,
Emanuella Giavarra



This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : to 23 marras 2017 - 01:20:15 EET