Re: Database Directive Interpretation


Subject: Re: Database Directive Interpretation
From: Emanuella Giavarra (ecup.secr@dial.pipex.com)
Date: ti 14 loka   1997 - 20:21:23 EEST


Dear list members,

I received the following message from Prof. Charles Oppenheim. He is
completely right. Examples clarifies it better.

Kind regards,
Emanuella Giavarra

----------------------------
Prof. Charles Oppenheim wrote:
 
Emanuella, this is helpful, but I think it would be even more helpful if
you gave actual examples. I have suggested some in all capitals in your
text.

> 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).
 
EXAMPLE OF THIS SCENARIO - CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS, WHERE BOTH THE
SELECTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE ABSTRACTS, AND THE TEXT OF THE
ABSTRACTS THEMSELVES, ARE ORIGINAL. ANOTHER EXAMPLE WOULD BE A
NEWSPAPER, WHERE THE SELECTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE CONTENTS, AND
THE MAJORITY OF THE ARTICLES AND OTHER PIECES ARE ORIGINAL.
 
> 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.
 
EXAMPLE: YELLOW PAGES DIRECTORY, WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES,
ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS ARE NON ORIGINAL, BUT THE SELECTION AND
ARRANGEMENT ARE ORIGINAL.
 
> 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.
 
EXAMPLE: WHITE PAGES TELEPHONE DIRECTORY; SHARE PRICE LISTING IN
SIMPLE ALPHABETICAL ORDER OF COMPANY; TV LISTINGS
 
> 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).

EXAMPLE: A SIMPLE LISTING IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER OF EVERY COMPANY IN A
COUNTRY, BUT THE DESCRIPTION FOR EACH COMPANY INCLUDES ORIGINAL
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL.

> 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
>
>
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> de Montfort University
> Hammerwood Gate
> Milton Keynes MK7 6HP
> UK
>
> Tel 1908-834945
> Fax 1908-834929
> charles@dmu.ac.uk



This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : ti 21 marras 2017 - 01:20:13 EET