UK: New ECJ Database Decision

Last Updated: 9 March 2009
Article by Susan Barty and Lucy Kilshaw

The ECJ gave judgment on 5 March 2009 in a further case on database rights in Apis-Hristovich EOOD -v- Lakorda AD, Case C-545/07. Unusually, there was no Advocate General's Opinion preceding the judgment.

The case concerns the extraction of parts of an online legal information and resources database, much of which comprised official public domain material, but which also contained editorial content, translations, links between documents and other information not generally accessible to the public.

The ECJ confirms that a wide view of extraction must be taken, in particular stating that the concept of extraction is independent of the defendant's objectives, of any modifications he makes to the material extracted and of any differences in the structural organisation of the parties' respective databases.

The ECJ also confirmed its previous case law, being the British Horseracing Board -v- William Hill case, regarding the need to analyse the degree of investment in obtaining, verifying and presenting the contents of a database when assessing whether a substantial part, measured quantitatively and/or qualitatively, has been extracted. Therefore, the fact that some material used was not generally accessible to the public could, depending on the effort made in collating this material, affect whether the material would be regarded as comprising a substantial part on a qualitative basis. Equally, where materials are accessible to the public, such as official legislation, there still needs to be an assessment as to whether extraction or re-utilisation of a substantial part has occurred, measured quantitatively and/or qualitatively, depending on whether obtaining, verifying or presenting the material represented a substantial human, technical or financial investment.

However, the ECJ made clear that the nature of an underlying computer program used to manage two electronic databases was not a factor in assessing whether extraction of the database had taken place.

To view the article in full, please see below:



Full Article

Database rights - the background

Database rights have now been protected under European law for over 10 years but have been the subject of much uncertainty. The previous cases at European level have been British Horseracing Board, Case C-203/02, Fixtures Marketing, Case C-444/02 (and others) and Directmedia Publishing, Case C-304/07, reported last October.

A database is widely defined under Directive 96/9/EC as "a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means". Protection under database right is granted where there has been a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of a database so as to prevent an extraction and/or re-utilisation by third parties of a substantial part of the database, measured either quantitatively or qualitatively.

The Court made clear in British Horseracing Board [please click here for our previous Law-Now on this case] that the ambit of protection for database rights was limited to the investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting data, and did not protect the creation of data itself. It also refused to take into account the commercial value of data in assessing whether a substantial part had been extracted or re-utilised, even when measuring substantiality on a qualitative basis. For these reasons the ambit of database right protection was, following this case, narrower than had been widely assumed, including by the English High Court which had originally found in favour of the British Horseracing Board. Following the ECJ's decision in 2004 the Court of Appeal was forced to overturn the original High Court decision.

Database right owners found British Horseracing Board very disappointing. However, since then, on other aspects of interpretation of database right law, the ECJ's approach has been to take a relatively generous view towards rights owners.

In the Directmedia case [please click here for our previous Law-Now on this case] the ECJ made clear that physical copying was not necessary in order to infringe. The question referred was whether an extraction occurred when a transfer of data followed individual assessments resulting from repeated consultation of the database, or whether extraction presupposes the physical copying of data. Directmedia had used as a point of reference a list of 1,100 poems created by a University professor. It examined each poem, rejecting some and adding others in order to make its own list, with the net result that its list of 1,000 poems used 856 of the poems on the University's list. The ECJ decided that physical copying was not necessary. It was also immaterial that the transfer from the original database may lead to an arrangement which is different from the original. Further, the method of transfer was irrelevant: it could not be argued that only acts consisting of a mechanical reproduction by means of a standard copy/paste process could be an extraction. The Court also reaffirmed the approach in British Horseracing Board concerning investment.

The Apis-Hristovich case

The latest case concerned a Bulgarian legal resources database created by Apis, made up of a number of modules. Some data comprised publicly available documents such as legislation; other data comprised court decisions which were not routinely publicly available. There were also legal definitions, references to translations, hyperlinks, editorial content and other original features. Lakorda, the defendant (established by former employees of Apis), was accused of extracting and re-using in its own product a substantial amount of the Apis database. In relation to one particular module of the Apis database, 82.5% of the total number of documents had been used by Lakorda. Further Lakorda's database contained many features and editorial content which was the same as that contained in the Apis database. Lakorda denied infringement and claimed its own substantial investment in its database, including the use of an original computer programme to manage the database and use of a different structure and a unique method of classification. Because of the use of publicly available sources, it argued that there was bound to be great similarity in the content of the respective databases.

A number of questions were referred by the Bulgarian national court which the ECJ considered in two sections: firstly questions relating to the concept of "extraction" and secondly, questions relating to the meaning of a "substantial part".

Extraction

Here the Court found as follows:

The distinction between "permanent transfer" and "temporary transfer" in Article 7 of Directive 96/9 is based on the length of time during which materials extracted from a protected database are stored in a medium other than that database. (In fact, as infringement covers both permanent and temporary transfer this finding does not have much practical effect.)

The point in time at which there is an extraction from an electronically accessible database is when the materials which are transferred are stored in a medium other than that database.

The concept of extraction is independent of (i) the objective pursued by the transferor; (ii) any modifications he may make to the contents of the materials transferred; and (iii) any differences in the structural organisation of the databases concerned.
This is one of the more important findings and consolidates comments made in previous case law. The fact that additional work is carried out to the materials extracted and the way they are presented in a subsequent database, as will often be the case, is not relevant to whether there has been an extraction in the first place. However, the Court acknowledges that the purpose of the transferor, for example, in creating a competing database, could be relevant to the measure of damages.

The fact that the physical and technical characteristics present in the contents of a protected database made by one person also appear in the contents of a database made by another person may be interpreted as evidence of extraction, unless the coincidence can be explained by other factors, for example, the possible use of identical source materials.

The fact that materials obtained by the maker of a database from sources not accessible to the public also appear in a database made by another person is not sufficient, in itself, to prove the existence of such extraction, but can constitute circumstantial evidence of extraction.

The nature of the computer program used to manage two electronic databases is not a factor in assessing whether extraction has taken place.

This finding is not surprising, but confirms that the underlying technology used to support a database is a separate issue which will not govern whether extraction from the database has occurred.

What is a substantial part?

The Court found:

Where a database is composed of separate modules, the volume of the materials allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised from one of those modules must be compared with the total contents of that module, if that individual module can of itself constitute a database. If not, the comparison must be made between the volume of the materials allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised from the various modules of that database and its total contents.

This will be a question of fact, but the definition of a database is so wide that a module is likely to capable of protection separately in many cases, provided that sufficient investment can be demonstrated. The ECJ notes that the mere fact that modules may be marketed separately as independent products is not decisive, as the definition of a database is not based on commercial considerations but on legal conditions.

The fact that the materials allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised from a database were obtained by the maker of that database from sources not accessible to the public may, according to the amount of human, technical and/or financial resources used to collect the materials, affect the classification of those materials as a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively, of the contents of the database concerned.

The Court here is making the point that the more effort and investment involved in collating the part of the database taken, the more likely it is to be found that a substantial part has been extracted. The intrinsic value of the material is not a relevant factor.

The fact that part of the materials contained in a database are official and accessible to the public does not relieve the national court of an obligation (in assessing whether there has been extraction and/or re-utilisation of a substantial part) to verify whether the materials allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised constitute a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively, inasmuch as their obtaining, verification and presentation involved a substantial human, technical or financial investment.

Here the Court appears to be saying that the level of investment may or may not be sufficient, depending on what has been done with the publicly accessible materials, but that the same analysis must be carried out in determining if there has been an infringement. It is not relevant that the materials (here, copies of Bulgarian legislation) may not be protected by copyright, as argued here by Lakorda.

This decision should be welcomed by database right owners. While the concept of "substantial part" is still restrained by the investment criteria set out in the British Horseracing Board case, the ECJ has at least made clear, as it did in the Directmedia case, that a wide interpretation should be applied to the concept of extraction.

For a copy of this judgement, please click here.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 06/03/2009.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions