The topic of database rights may be back in fashion following the recent High Court case of Crowson Fabrics Ltd v Rider, where two ex-employees were held to have infringed their ex-employer's database rights when they left to set up a rival fabric business taking with them copies of customer sales figures and various electronic files. Whilst the High Court held that the information was not confidential, Crowson's database rights were infringed as a result of the ex-employees extracting substantial parts of the database by copying the material to their own computer system to be used in the rival business.
Databases can be, and often are, extremely valuable commercial assets. Businesses can and do spend considerable resources in developing them and frequently they underpin the high quality service offered to their customers and such investment should be sufficiently protected.
Database rights were introduced by the Database Directive (96/9/EC) and implemented into UK legislation by the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997. A database is defined as "a collection of independent works, data or other materials which are arranged in a systematic or methodical way and are individually accessible by electronic or other means". In order for a database to attract protection there must have been substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of the database. The rights arise automatically on creation and do not require any formal registration.
Unfortunately, database rights have been widely criticised since their introduction and their future has been in doubt since the ECJ decision in British Horseracing Board v William Hill. As we reported back in 2005, the ECJ judgement seriously weakened the protection provided by the Directive and led to the European Commission suggesting the Directive would need serious alterations in order to sufficiently protect database rights in the future.
Whilst the Commission has yet to finalise what action it considers necessary, the success of this recent case has shown that, despite the narrow interpretation adopted by the ECJ, there is still value in bringing actions under the current regulations.
Disclaimer
The material contained in this article is of the nature of general comment only and does not give advice on any particular matter. Recipients should not act on the basis of the information in this e-update without taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.
