Gepubliceerd op woensdag 14 maart 2012
IEF 11038
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Geschriftenbescherming voor databanken uitgesloten: Geen groot nieuws

T. Cohen Jehoram, 'Copyright in non-original-writings. Past – present – future?', in: J.J.C. Kabel & G.J.H.M. Mom, Intellectual property and Information Law. Den Haag: Kluwer Law International 1998.

Met bijgaand commentaar van Tobias Cohen Jehoram, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek.

Commentaren [red. bijv. IEF 11002] die suggereren dat het groot nieuws is dat de geschriftenbescherming voor databanken uitgesloten is als gevolg van het Football Dataco arrest [red. IEF 10977]. Dat is het natuurlijk niet. Ik hecht aan een artikel uit 1998. Zie met name pagina 107-108:

The Present: the tide does, however, seem to have turned on the pseudo-copyright in non-original writings.

Software Directive
The first indications thereof can be found in the Software Directive. This directive set an important precedent for exclusively originality-based copyright protection. Article 1 paragraph 2 of that directive states that the idea and principle contained in computer prorams and in interfaces are not protected. Furthermore a computer program will be copyright protected (par. 3) only if it is original in the sense that it constitutes the author's own intellectual creation. No other criteria may be applied to determine the eligibility of a computer program for this protection. This made it perfectly clear that copyright protection for non-original computer programs would not be allowed under the directive. In the Netherlands, this subject hadled to a fiery dispute about a pseudo-copyright protection for computer programs. With the implementation of the Software Directive, computer programs were excluded from pseudo-copyright in the Dutch Copyright Act, simply by stating that computer programs arer not part of 'all other writings'.

Database Directive

During that time, the need for protection of database became more urgent. After the Feist decision it became clear to the negotiators working on the European Database Directiv that copyright is not the proper tool with which to protect databases. The Database Directive therefore contains a sui generi protection for those databases that are not original. This directive in a first draft only related to electronic databases, but now covers all collections of works, data or other independent elements that are organized systematically or methodically, and that can be accessed through electronic eans or in any other way. This is a broad definition of databases. Indeed it seems to cover all non-original writing to which pseudo-copyright has been granted in the Netherlands. If the obtaining, the checking or th presentation of the content of a database in respect of quality or quantity represents a substantial investment, then sui generis protection is granted. This seems to create a protection for all the non-original writings that have been considered worthy of protection under the pseudo-copyright. If non substantial investment was made, protection falls outside the quintessence of the copyright protection in non-original writings. Therefore, with the implementation of the Database Directive the needd for such a pseudo-copyright protection seems to have disappeared.