A number of “authorized acts” are set out in the regulations. The right in a database that has been made available to the public is not infringed by the fair treatment of a substantial part of its contents in certain defined circumstances, for example where a person has the right to use the database extracts data for teaching or research purposes and not for commercial purposes (provided that he or she indicates the source of the material). Retrieval and re-use are also permitted if the identity of the producer cannot be established by reasonable investigation and if it can reasonably be assumed that the database right has expired. The term “database” refers to the collection of related records, and the software should be called “database management system” or “DBMS”. However, when the context is ambiguous, many database administrators and programmers use the term database to cover both meanings. Contracts. Contracts are an important source of protection for database producers, both in the form of contracts and negotiated agreements. They appear in a variety of print and electronic formats. As a general rule, contracts are used to restrict access, set the conditions of authorized use and set the conditions of application and recourse. Different companies offer different types of pricing structures. It is quite common for producers to charge different prices and reduced fees to non-profits and educational institutions. In British Horseracing Board v. William Hill [2004], the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has provided guidance on the application of database rights rules and has significantly reduced the scope of protection of a database maker under the Regulation.

The case concerned a database maintained by the British Horseracing Board (BHB) containing race information, registration data of horses, jockeys, timetables, race conditions, registrations, riders, etc. It cost BHB about £4 million a year to maintain. William Hill showed a small specific amount of information from BHB`s database on his website. BHB filed a lawsuit alleging that William Hill`s use of the information violated BHB`s database rights. It should be noted that information contained in a database that is not publicly accessible may also be protected by the law of trust. For more information, see our Guide to Confidential Information. This guide is not intended to address data protection issues. However, it is important to remember that possession of database rights does not necessarily give the owner unlimited rights to use the data contained in the database in all circumstances. The General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 (together the “Legislation”) deal with the use of personal data stored both manually and in automated form and will therefore often be applicable to databases.

Personal data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (“data subject”) who can be identified from such data or data as well as other information in the possession of the Controller or which may come into the possession of the Controller (“Controller”). Any software used in the creation or operation of a database is expressly excluded from protection as a database; Instead, software as a literary work is usually protected by copyright. However, since software is often developed in a modular form, it is possible that, in some cases, a set of software modules is protected as a database. In addition, certain elements of a computer program (such as on-screen lookup tables that users can search for information) can form a database. Many professionals consider a data collection to be a database only if it has certain characteristics: for example, if the data is managed to ensure its integrity and quality, if it allows shared access by a community of users, if it has a schema, or if it supports a query language. However, there is no general consensus definition of these characteristics. `Directive 96/9 must be interpreted as precluding, subject to the transitional provision laid down in Article 14(2) of that directive, national legislation which grants copyright protection to databases within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive under conditions other than those laid down in Article 3, paragraph 2 of that directive. 1 of this Directive. In order to determine whether the data constitute a substantial part in the qualitative sense, the Court considers that reference should be made to the extent of the investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the content extracted and/or reused from the database (and not to the value of the extracted content). Since no special effort was made to obtain, verify or present the part of the database used by William Hill, that part could not be substantial in a qualitative sense.

Database rights that existed in the UK prior to the withdrawal will continue to exist in the UK for the remainder of their term. So, if you want to use databases protected by such rights, you still need the permission of the copyright holder. In addition, limited copyright protection for databases under the CDPA 1988 will continue at the UK national level and no immediate changes to UK copyright law are expected after Brexit. Copyright. Copyright protection of databases is, if at all, very thin. As a result, database manufacturers have adopted three main strategies to protect themselves against unauthorized use of their products: (1) improve copyright protection by modifying the structure or content of their databases to incorporate more creativity; (2) increasing reliance on contracts; and (3) the use of technological security measures to prevent unauthorized access and use. The maker of a database is defined as the person who “takes the initiative to obtain, examine or present the contents of a database and assumes the risk of investing in such obtaining, examination or presentation”, and this person is the first owner of the right in the database. This definition contrasts with that of a copyright owner, because when a database is commissioned, the agent is usually the “producer” and the first owner of the database right. If the database is created by an employee in the course of his or her employment, the employer is considered to be the maker and therefore the owner of the database right, unless otherwise agreed.