Abstract
Database protection has become a seriously debated issue in Europe and the United States since the 1990s. In Europe, the Database Directive of 1996 offered two-tiered protection, for original and non-original databases, instituting the database maker’s sui generis right; the United States declined to change its steady position against protecting non-original databases. The Court of Justice of the European Union, interpreting the Directive, carved a narrow database right. While these decisions enjoyed universal acclaim from many theorists, suddenly in the 2015 Ryanair decision, the CJEU subtly blasted its prior database jurisprudence, highlighting contract as a means to enclose data into absolute proprietary models in a way completely unforeseeable until then. We are left behind to watch the enclosing of open data acquire a legitimization never before possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bits of Power. Issues of Global Access to Scientific data, Committee on issues on the transborder flow of scientific data,USA National Committee for CODATA, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Applications, National Research Council, National, Academy Press, Washington (1997)
Davison, M.: The Legal Protection of Databases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Reichman, J., Samuelson, P.: Intellectual property rights to data? Vander. L. Rev. 50, 49 (1997)
Feist Publications v. Rural Tel. Ser. Co. Inc., 499 US 340 (1991)
Shields, P., Racina, R.: What’s all that fuss about Feist? The sky is not falling on the intellectual property rights of online database proprietors. U. Dayton L. Rev. 17, 563 (1992)
Smith S.: Legal protection of factual compilations and databases in England: how will the database directive change the law in this area, IPQR 2001, 100
Hugenholtz, B.: The new database right: early case law from Europe (2001). www.ivir.nl
Bottis, M.: Legal protection of databases, Nomiki Vivliothiki (2004). (in Greek)
Hugenholtz, B.: Implementing the database directive. In: Kabel, M. (ed.) Intellectual Property and Information Law, Essays in Honor of Herman Cohen Jehoram, pp. 187–200. Kluwer Law International, The Hague (1998)
Benkler, Y.: Constitutional bounds of database protection: the role of the judicial review in the creation and definition in private rights in information. Berkeley L. Tech. J. 15, 535 (2000)
Grosheide, F.W.: Database protection: the European way. Wash. U.L.J Pol’y 8, 39 (2002)
Hugenholtz, B.: Abuse of database right. Sole source information banks under the EU Database Doctrine. In: Leveque, F., Shelanski, H. (eds.) Antitrust, Patents and Copyright: EU and US Perspectives, pp. 203–219. Edward Elgar, Cheltenmam (2005)
Hugenholtz, B.: Program schedules, event data and telephone subscriber listings under the database directive-the “spin-off” doctrine in The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. Paper Presented at Eleventh Annual Conference on International IP law and Policy, Fordham University School of Law, New York (14–25 April 2005). www.ivir.nl
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bottis, M. (2015). How Open Data Become Proprietary in the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: Katsikas, S., Sideridis, A. (eds) E-Democracy – Citizen Rights in the World of the New Computing Paradigms. e-Democracy 2015. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 570. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27164-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27164-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27163-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27164-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)