25.1.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC19/3
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheLegalProtectionofDataBases(*)
(93/C19/02)
On18June1992,theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee ,
underArticle100aoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforIndustry,Commerce,CraftsandServices,whichwasresponsibleforpreparing
theCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon6November1992.The
RapporteurwasMrMoreland.
Atits301stPlenarySession(meetingof24November1992),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
1.SummaryoftheCommission'sproposal
1.1.ThisDraftDirectiveisdesignedtoprotectelec­
tronicdatabasesthroughthemediumpartlyofthelaw
ofcopyrightandpartlythroughaspecificnewrightto
prevent'unfairextraction'fromadatabase.1.5.Forexample,whitepagestelephonedirectories
areprotectedunderthelawofcopyrightinsomeMem­
berStates.If,asfrequentlyhappens,thesewhitepages
directoriesaremadeavailableonCD-ROMasdatabas­
es,thedatabasesthemselveswouldnotbeprotectedas
'original'databases(becausetherewouldbenointellec­
tualcreationintransposingthemfrompapertothe
electronicmedium)andwouldnotbethesubjectofthe
unfairextractionrightbecause,atleastinsomeMem­
berStates,therewouldbecopyrightintheunderlying
materials . 1.2.ExistinglegislationintheMemberStatesvaries.
TheUnitedKingdomwhichhasthelargestshareofthe
Communitymarket[estimatesvarybuttheUKshare
maybeahigh60%with37%ofUKproductionbeing
usedelsewhereintheCommunity (seespeechbyD.R.
Warlock,London7May1992)],providescomprehen­
sivecopyrightprotectionfordatabasesandmostdatab­
asesqualifyforprotection .InSpain,databasesare
protectedassuchandthereisanelaboratedefinitionof
preciselywhatqualifiesasadatabase.InotherMember
Statesthelevelofprotectionislessandinsomecases
inneedofclarification .1.6.Wherethecontentsofadatabasewhichismade
publiclyavailableareeither:
a)unobtainablefromanyothersource;or
b)madeavailablebyapublicbodyunderadutyto
gatheranddiscloseinformation ,
extractionofsuchcontentsmustbelicensedonfairand
reasonableterms,buttheproposaldoesnotstatehow
the'fairandreasonableterms'shouldbedetermined .1.3.Inthisproposal,adatabasemustbeelectronic
tobeprotectedatall.Toenjoycopyrightprotectionit
mustalsobe'original',thatis,its'selectionorarrange­
ment'mustconstitutetheauthor'sownintellectual
creation.Itistheselectionorarrangementwhichmust
beoriginal,notthecontentsofthedatabase.1.7.Theunfairextractionrightlastsfortenyears
(incontrasttothecopyrightinadatabasewhichquali­
fiesforcopyrightprotection,whichlastsforatleast50
yearspma). 1.4.TheCommissiondoesprovidesomeprotection
fordatabasesthatarenot'intellectualcreation'(i.e.
oftenreferredtoas'sweatofthebrow').Asregards
thecontentsofadatabase,thereisanunfairextraction
rightwhichpermitsthemakerofadatabasetoprevent
othersfrommakingextractsfromthedatabasefor
commercialpurposeswithoutthemaker'sconsent.This
applieswhetherornotthedatabaseitselfisprotected
bycopyrightbutdoesnotapplyifthecontentsofthe
databasearethemselvesprotectedbycopyright.2.Generalcomments
2.1.AlthoughtheCommitteeadvocateschangesin
theDirective,itwelcomestheCommission'sinitiative
onthissubjectinordertoensurethattheCommunity
hasastrongdatabaseindustry,abletocompeteagainst
itscompetitorsinthirdcountries.TheCommittee
believesthatinassessingthisproposaltheCouncil
shouldkeepasitsparamountobjectivetheneedfora (!)OJNoC156,23.6.1992,p.4.

NoC19/4 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 25.1.93
2.5.TheCommitteebelievesthattheCouncilshould
considerthefollowingalternatives .strongdatabaseindustry.Consequently ,examination
shouldfocusonensuringthatthelegalprotectionenvis­
agedleadstothisobjectiveand,equally,ontheextent
towhichitdoesnothindernewentrantstothemarket.
TheCouncilshouldresistbeingsidetrackedintoa
debateonlegalphilosophieswhichunderlietheDirec­
tive,particularlyonthesubjectof'originality'.2.6.Onechoicewouldbefortheunfairextraction
righttoberemovedfromthedraftDirectiveasa
separaterightandthatarighttopreventunfairextrac­
tionbeinsertedasoneoftherestrictedactsunderthe
copyrightinadatabase.TheCommittee'sreasonsfor
thisrecommendation areasfollows.
2.6.1.Theunfairextractionrightisasuigeneris
right.Sofar,initsproposalsontheharmonization of
intellectualpropertyquestions,theCommissionhas
rejectedtheconceptofnewsuigenerisrightsandthe
Councilhasfollowedthisapproachinitsdecision­
making.Itshouldbenotedinparticularthatthe
Councilfollowedthisapproachinrespectoftherecent
DirectiveontheProtectionofComputerPrograms (the
'SoftwareDirective').Thisapproachhasalsobeen
endorsedbythisCommitteeinthepast.2.2.TheexperienceoftheUnitedKingdomin
attractingasubstantialdatabaseindustry(particularly
vis-a-vistheUnitedStates)indicatesthatthedevelop­
mentofastronglocaldatabaseindustrycorrelateswith
ahighlevelofintellectualpropertyprotection .Any
effectiveweakeningofexistingintellectualproperty
protectionmaycausetheCommunitytoruntherisk
thatpotentialdatabasecreatorswilllooktothird
countries (e.g.Canada)whereprotectionmaybe
stronger,tocreatedatabasesinfuture.
2.3.Inthiscontexttheproposed'unfairextraction'
protectiondoeshavelimitationsinensuringthatthe
databaseindustryisstrong.
a)First,onlyifthecontentsthemselvesofadatabase
arenotprotectedbycopyrightdoECnationalshave
thebenefitofprotection .2.6.2.Itwouldbewrongtocompromiseonthe
questionofwhetherornotsomethingshouldbeprotect­
edbyallowingameasureofshort-termintellectual
propertyprotectionwithacompulsorylicence.Itis
preferabletotakeadecisiononwhethersomething
qualifiesforprotectionand,ifso,thentograntintellec­
tualpropertyprotectionofahighstandard.
2.6.3.Itmaybesaidthattoincludetheunfairextrac­
tionrightasoneoftherightsofthecopyrightowneris
inconsistentwiththephilosophythatcopyrightprotects
therightsofauthors.However,theconceptofcopyright
asaneconomicrightwhichisimportantinanindustrial
contexthasalreadybeenacceptedintheSoftware
Directiveandtheapproachtocopyrightsetoutinthe
SoftwareDirectivehasbeenwidelywelcomedthrough­
outtheCommunity .b)Secondly,thetermoftherightistooshort.More
importantly ,itisunclearastowhenthetermof
eithertheunfairextractionrightorthecopyright
begins.Databasesareconstantlybeingupdated.
Theextenttowhichthetermhasbeen'restarted'
dependsonwhetherachangeis'insubstantial',
becausean'insubstantial'changedoesnotstartthe
termofprotectionrunningagain.Itwillbedifficult
tojudgeobjectivelytheconceptofinsubstantiality .2.7.Thesecondchoiceistoaccepttheunfairextrac­
tionrightasasuigenerisright,butshouldensurethat
itisaseffectivearightasitwouldbeifitwerea
restrictedactunderthecopyrightinthedatabase.In
otherwords,theunfairextractionrightshouldnotbe
aslimitedasitisinArticle2.5inrespectofitsterm
andthecompulsorylicensingprovisionsinArticle8.1
shouldbecurtailed.Grantedtheincreasingsophisti­
cationoftheCommunity'slawsensuringfaircompe­
tition,anymisusebyitsproprietorsofthisexclusionary
rightcanbedealtwithbytheapplicationofthoselaws.c)Thirdly,theborderlinebetweenadatabasefrom
intellectualcreativityor'sweatofthebrow'willbe
difficulttodefinegivingrisetotheriskofextensive
(andexpensive)legalaction.Thisbegsthequestion
astowhetheradistinctionisimportant.Databases,
whichotherswouldliketocopycommercially may
haveinvolvedmucheffortandexpensewithout
meetingtheoriginalitycriteria.Yet,theywould
onlybeprotectedbythelimitedunfairextraction
right.
3.Specificcomments
3.1.Preamble2.4.Consequently ,theCommitteebelievesthatthe
unfairextractionrightmayproveinadequateinprovid­
ingtheprotectionneededforastrongCommunity
databaseindustryandforthosewhoseeffortsneed
protectionagainstcopying.TheCommitteewelcomesthepracticeofnumbering
paragraphsinthePreamblebutwondersifisreally

25.1.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC19/5
necessarytohave40paragraphsofoftenrepetitious
wording.underlyingworkswhichmakeupadatabase,rather
thanrelatingtorightsindatabasesthemselves .Inthe
opinionoftheCommitteethisissomethingwhich
shouldawaittheharmonization ofthegenerallawof
copyright.
3.8.Article53.2.Article1.1
Thedraftisconfinedto'electronic'databases .The
Committeeisconcernedthatthiswillmeanthatdiffer­
entlegalregimeswillapplytothesamedatabaseifit
isstoredbothelectronicallyandotherwise.Thiswould
notonlycomplicatethelawbutcouldleadtoundesir­
ablepracticalconsequences .Theexclusiverightsaresubstantiallythesameasinthe
Directiveontheprotectionofcomputerprograms.This
isthecorrectapproach.
3.9.Article73.3.Article1.4
Theuseofthephrase'insubstantialchanges'asameans
ofdefiningwhenadatabasebecomesanew'original'
databaseforthepurposesofthetermofprotection
(Article9.2)isunsatisfactory .Itisdifficulttoimagine
changesmadetotheselectionorarrangementofthe
contents(asopposedtothecontentsthemselves )which
wouldbeinsubstantial .Itmaybeappropriatetoextendtheexceptionsreferred
toinArticle7.1tocoverthereportingof,forexample,
currentaffairsandotherexceptionsnormallymadeto
theexclusiverightsofthecopyrightownerinthelaws
ofmostMemberStates.
3.10.Article8.1
Itmaybeappropriatetomakeitclearthatthecompul­
sorylicensingprovisionsundertheunfairextraction
right(ifitisconsideredappropriatetohavecompulsory
licensingatall,whichwouldnotbepermissibleifthe
unfairextractionrightwerepartofthegenerallawof
copyright)onlyapplytotherightcreatedbyArticle2.5
andnottothecopyright (ifany)inthedatabaseorits
contents .3.4.Article2.1
ThesignificanceofthereferencetotheBerneConven­
tionisthatbyprotectingdatabasesinthiswayMember
Stateswillbeobligedtoprotectdatabasesemanating
fromothercountriesoftheConvention (inparticular,
theUSA).Thesamewouldalsobetrueoftheunfair
extractionrightifitweremadearestrictedactunder
thecopyrightinthedatabase.However,thatisnot,in
theopinionoftheCommittee,aseriousobstacle:this
dichotomybetweentherightsgrantedintheUSAand
therightsgrantedincertainMemberStatesalready
existstonosignificantdetrimenttothedatabaseindus­
tryintheMemberStatesconcerned .3.11.Article8.2
Thedefinitionof'publicbody'needstobemademore
precise,bearinginmindinparticulartheneedtoensure
consistencyinthetypeofactivitywhichistobethe
subjectoftheseprovisionsthroughouttheEC.3.5.Article2.5
Iftheunfairextractionrightsurvivesasasuigeneris
rightitshouldbemadeclearthatitappliestounauthor­
isedaccessaswellastoextractionandre-utilisation .
3.12.Article8.3
3.6.Article3.1
AsinthecaseoftheSoftwareDirective,thedraft
doesnotobligeMemberStatestoprotectcomputer­
generateddatabases (i.e.databaseswhichhaveno
humanauthor).Thisisanissuewhichwillhavetobe
addressedatsometime.Thisisveryvague.IsitintendedthatallMemberStates
shouldberequiredtosetup(iftheydonothaveit
already)abodyequivalenttotheUKCopyrightTri­
bunal?Ifso,thepowersanddutiesofsuchatribunal,
andtheprinciplesuponwhichitistooperate,should
bespecifiedinmuchgreaterdetail.
3.7.Article4.1
Thisappearstorequireanalterationtothelawsofthe
MemberStatesrelatingtothecopyrightinthe3.13.Article9.3
Itisnotclearwhythespecifictermoftenyearsforthis
rightwasselected.Asstatedinsection3.4above,it

NoC19/6 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 25.1.93
SoftwareDirective,namelyarequirementthatdevices
designedtocircumventtechnicalprotectionofdatabas­
esareunlawful.
3.16.Article11.3
ThiswillmeanthattheCommissionwouldnegotiate
onthisissuewiththirdcountries.doesnotappearthatexistenceoftheequivalentofan
unfairextractionrightaspartofthecopyrightinsome
MemberStateshasimpededthegrowthoftheindustry.
3.14.Article9.4
Thedefinitionof'insubstantialchanges'inArticle1.4
referstochangestotheselectionorarrangementofthe
contentsofadatabase.Ascurrentlydrafted,thisisnot
anappropriatephrasetouseinrelationtothecontents
themselvesforthepurposesofdeterminingwhenthe
unfairextractionrightbeginstorun.Further,theCom­
mitteewouldrepeatitscriticismsofthisArticleasset
outinsection2.3b)above.TheCommitteesuggests
thatamorepracticalmeansofdeterminingthestartof
afreshtermofprotectionwouldbeforeachitemof
datainthedatabasetobeelectronicallyorotherwise
'date-stamped 'onitsincorporation intothedatabase.
Eachpieceofdatawouldbeprotectedfortheappropri­
atetermfromthedateofitsdate-stamp .
3.15.Article10
TheCouncilshouldconsiderwhetheritisappropriate
toincludeaprovisionsimilartoArticle7.1(c)ofthe3.17.Article13
Thedatespecifiedof1January1993iswhollyunrealis­
tic.Thisissueisnotonethatwascoveredinthe1985
SingleMarketWhitePaper.
3.18.TheCommitteenotesthattheCouncilhas,in
previousDirectives,askedforregularreportsonaspects
ofcopyrighttobeproducedbytheCommission .If
similaractionisincorporated inthefinalCouncil
Decisiononthisproposal,theCommitteelooksfor­
wardtobeinganofficialrecipientofsuchareport.
DoneatBrussels,24November1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN