In the September 3rd edition of Science∣Business, Julia Reda, German Pirate Party member of the European Parliament (MEP) sitting on the EP Justice Committee, was said to be confident that a mandatory text and data mining (TDM) deal could be introduced for researchers.
This should come as music to the ears of the members of the scientific community, for evidence suggests that Europe’s strict copyright rules have a negative impact on text and data mining activities in academic research compared to other countries with more flexible copyright regimes (see: ‘Is Europe Falling Behind in Data Mining? Copyright’s Impact on Data Mining in Academic Research’ by C. Handke, L. Guibault and J.J. Vall [...]
The time at which extraction from an electronic database takes place is the time at which the materials being extracted are placed on a medium other than that of the original database, independently of whether they are placed there permanently or temporarily (Case 545/07, Apis Hristovih EOOD v. Lakorda AD, paragraph 45). The time of extraction is essential for civil proceedings for infringement of database rights and the burden to prove this specific moment lies with the claimant (in addition to proving the fact of infringement). In proceedings for infringement of database rights the content of the respective databases should be compared as at the time of claimed extraction.
Where the claima [...]
The CJEU’s interpretative work on copyright law issues launched in 2015 with the decision of 15 January in the case of Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (Case C‑30/14). The Ryanair ruling is the latest stone added to the complex edifice of legal protection of databases in Europe.
PR Aviation operates a website which allows consumers to search through the flight data of low-cost air companies. It obtains the necessary data to respond to an individual query by automated means, inter alia, from a dataset linked to the Ryanair website. Access to Ryanair’s website presupposes that a visitor to the site accepts the application of the air company’s general terms and conditions by ticking a box [...]
“The activity of the operator of a dedicated meta search engine (…) comes close to the manufacture of a parasitical competing product.”
Christmas somewhat overshadowed the publication of a particularly interesting CJEU decision: case C-202/12 (Innoweb), dealing with the legal protection of databases in relation to meta search engines. The judgment was published on 19 december 2013.
The preliminary questions referred to the CJEU arose in Dutch civil proceedings against Innoweb, a company that operates the dedicated car meta search engine ‘GasPedaal’ (literally ‘accelerator pedal’), which enables users to simultaneously carry out searches in several collections (databases) of ca [...]
“The report reflects the general tendency of Swiss legislative authorities to avoid legislative process and to favor a flexible approach of existing regulations.”
The Swiss Federal Council reported a few weeks ago, in response to a postulate referred by the National Council in 2011 related to the legal situation of social media, that Social networks such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs present legislation with new challenges but cannot be overcome by a separate special law. However a detailed examination will be carried out to determine whether new regulations are needed. This relates to the enforcement of the law, the liability of service providers and some aspects of data protection.
In a short but very important judgement of 25 June 2013, the Cour de cassation, the French Supreme Court, has ruled that the sale of a computerized customer file is null and void if the French personal data authority CNIL has not been notified of the file in compliance with article 22 of the French personal data Act.
In the present case, a natural person brought a case against a company, claiming that the sale of a computerized customer file containing personal data had to be annulled, because the CNIL had not been notified of the file. To dismiss th [...]
Besides tulips, cheese, football and other recreational matters, the Netherlands are famous for its copyright protection of non-original writings. Geschriftenbescherming, as the Dutch call this legal anomaly (and only they know how to pronounce it), is a remnant of an ancient eighteenth-century printer’s right that lives on until this day in the Dutch Copyright Act of 1912. Deviating from the idea of author’s right (droit d’auteur) to which Dutch law otherwise subscribes, the Dutch Act protects ‘writings’ that do not meet the test of originality. Article 10 (1), first item, of the Act, mentions as protected subject matter ‘books, brochures, newspapers, periodicals and all other wri [...]
“The ECJ does not go as far as the Advocate General, and observes that given the ubiquitous nature of the content of a website, the mere fact that the website is accessible in a national territory is not sufficient to consider that the operator of that site is performing an act of re-utilisation caught by the national law.”
On 18 October 2012, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its judgment in Football Dataco II (C-173/11), in which it ruled that data is re-utilised in a Member State, the meaning of Article 7 of the Directive 96/9, if there is evidence that the alleged infringer intended to target members of the public in that territory.
The Court of Appeal of England and Wale [...]
On September 23, 1912, the Dutch Copyright Act – Auteurswet – was enacted. A century after its enactment the Dutch law is one of the world’s oldest ‘living’ acts of the author’s rights tradition. While the Act has seen many small and large amendments since its adoption in 1912, it has never been thoroughly revised, so its conception and basic structure have remained essentially intact.
On August 31, 2012, the Dutch Copyright Society (Vereniging voor Auteursrecht) will celebrate the Act’s hundredth anniversary with a large international conference to be held in Amsterdam at the beautiful Royal Tropical Institute (Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen). The conference will look at [...]
On 21 June 2012, Advocate General Cruz Villalón delivered his opinion in Case C-173/11: Football Dataco Ltd and Ors v. Sportradar GmbH and Ors regarding a question where the use of the content of a database protected by sui generis database right takes place.
It has been four months since the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Case C-604/10 Football Dataco Ltd, and Ors. v Yahoo! And Ors. (see E.Derclaye’s comment here) holding that inter alia that “significant labour and skill of the author of the database cannot as such justify the protection of it by copyright under Directive 96/9, if that labour and that skill do not express any originality in the selection or arrangement of [...]