| Abstract: | ![]()
LEGAL CONTEXT: The decisions of the ECJ in William Hill and Fixtures Marketingconstitute setbacks for rightholders seeking to protect thecontent of databases from unauthorised use by others. This developmentis keenly felt in Ireland and the UK because of the absenceof any overlapping protection in the form of unfair competitionrelief against parasitical activities by competitors. Ironically,post-Feist US copyright law, in the form of the Montgomery CountyRealtor case (1995), when contrasted with the recent Dutch ZAHdecision (2006), shows that US copyright law affords a greaterlevel of protection than is available in the EU under the DatabaseDirective. The ZAH decision also builds upon earlier Germancase law, virtually eliminating liability for linking to websitematerial made available to the public. KEY POINTS: In ZAH, the Dutch Court's interpretation of the Directive andcriteria to be met before content may be copyright protectedwas very restrictive, in stark contrast to the approach of mostCommon Law judges. The result is a very different one to thatintended by the drafters of the Directive, a point reinforcedby the European Commission's own 2005 assessment of the Directive. PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The Directive has been a disaster from every perspective. Lawmakersin the UK and Ireland may feel that the time is right to consideradopting national measures to produce a more balanced protectivemeasure in respect of commercial databases and an effectivemeans of stimulating investment by following unfair competitionprinciples, rather than the quasi-copyright model of the suigeneris right. ZAH demonstrates that until the European Commissiontackles the critical issue of a common originality standard(which is very unlikely) national differences will be inevitablewithin EU copyright law. |
