Database Protection Under Copyright Law.
1. Introduction: Database Protection under Copyright Law
Databases are collections of data organized systematically. While facts themselves are not protected under copyright, the original selection or arrangement of the database may be.
Key Principles:
Originality: Copyright protects the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of contents, not the facts themselves.
Compilation Right: Under laws like the U.S. Copyright Act, the person who compiles the database can have copyright protection for the structure.
Feist Principle: Mere effort in collecting data (“sweat of the brow”) does not create copyright unless there is originality.
The protection differs across jurisdictions, but we will focus on cases that illustrate these principles.
2. Key Case Laws
Case 1: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) – USA
Facts:
Rural Telephone Service published a local phone directory with factual listings of names, addresses, and phone numbers. Feist Publications copied some of these listings in its own directory.
Issue:
Whether the white pages (telephone listings) were protected by copyright merely because of the effort involved in collecting them.
Decision:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that:
Mere effort or “sweat of the brow” does not justify copyright protection.
The originality in selection or arrangement is required.
Facts themselves are not copyrightable, only their original presentation can be.
Implication:
This case is a cornerstone in database copyright law. Databases with purely factual information require creativity in organization for copyright protection.
Case 2: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339 – Canada
Facts:
CCH, a Canadian publisher, sued the Law Society of Upper Canada for reproducing parts of its legal reports in a database for lawyers.
Issue:
Whether reproducing parts of copyrighted works in a database constituted infringement.
Decision:
The Supreme Court of Canada recognized originality in compilation.
The selection, coordination, or arrangement of information was protected.
“Skill and judgment” must be applied in compiling information for it to be protected.
Implication:
This reinforced that even databases in professional or legal settings can receive copyright protection if originality is present.
Case 3: British Horseracing Board Ltd v. William Hill Organization Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 130 – UK
Facts:
The British Horseracing Board (BHB) created a database of racing information and claimed William Hill copied it.
Issue:
Whether the database was protected under UK copyright law, especially under the sui generis Database Right and copyright.
Decision:
The Court of Appeal distinguished between:
Copyright in creative selection/arrangement
Sui generis database rights protecting investment in obtaining and verifying data
BHB’s database did not involve originality in selection, so copyright did not apply.
However, the database could be protected under the Database Directive (EU) for substantial investment.
Implication:
Introduced distinction between copyright protection (originality-based) and database rights (investment-based).
Case 4: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) – USA
Facts:
ProCD compiled a database of telephone directory information. Zeidenberg copied it despite license restrictions.
Issue:
Whether a compilation of factual information with license terms can be protected under copyright.
Decision:
The court upheld copyright in the database.
The arrangement of data, along with licensing terms, was sufficient for copyright protection.
Implication:
Highlights that contractual licensing terms can reinforce copyright protections for databases.
Case 5: Tasini v. New York Times Co., 184 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 1999) – USA
Facts:
Freelance journalists sued NYT for reproducing their articles in electronic databases without permission.
Issue:
Whether inclusion of individual works into a database constitutes copyright infringement.
Decision:
Court held that electronic databases distributing copyrighted articles without consent infringed copyright, even if the original work was published in print.
Implication:
Extends database protection to electronic formats.
Shows that aggregation of copyrighted material can raise new infringement issues.
Case 6: Re: S&A Databases Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1361 – Australia
Facts:
S&A Databases created a database of court decisions. Another party copied the database structure.
Issue:
Whether originality existed in the database compilation.
Decision:
Australian court recognized originality in selection and arrangement.
Mere facts weren’t protected, but the way they were organized in the database was.
Implication:
Australian law aligns with the Feist principle. Databases with creative structuring are protected even if facts are public.
Case 7: IMS Health Inc. v. NDC Health Corp, 9 F. Supp. 2d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) – USA
Facts:
IMS Health sued NDC for copying its prescription database.
Issue:
Whether the investment in collecting factual data alone could create copyright.
Decision:
Court ruled that copyright protects the original selection and arrangement but not raw data itself.
IMS could not claim copyright solely based on investment or effort in collection.
Implication:
Reinforces that originality—not effort—is central to copyright protection of databases.
3. Key Takeaways
Originality is Critical: Databases need creative selection or arrangement to be protected.
Facts vs. Compilation: Raw data/facts are not copyrightable; compilations can be.
Electronic Databases: Digital reproduction can trigger new infringement issues (Tasini).
International Variation: EU and UK have sui generis database rights, but the U.S. relies on originality (Feist).
Contractual Reinforcement: Licensing agreements strengthen database protection.
✅ Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Feist v. Rural | USA | Originality required; effort alone insufficient |
| CCH Canadian Ltd | Canada | Skill/judgment in compilation protects database |
| BHB v. William Hill | UK | Distinction between copyright and database rights |
| ProCD v. Zeidenberg | USA | Database arrangement + licensing enforceable |
| Tasini v. NYT | USA | Electronic database reproduction can infringe copyright |
| S&A Databases | Australia | Original arrangement protects database |
| IMS Health v. NDC | USA | Investment alone not enough; originality needed |
RELATED Blog
comments