Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Database Rights in Big Data and the Cloud—Main Legal Considerations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Big Data, Databases and "Ownership" Rights in the Cloud

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation ((PLBI))

  • 897 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter delves into detail about the problems raised by database rights in the wake of the Internet and the Big Data era. Database rights, also known as sui generis rights, grant exclusive property protection to any creator of databases based on a qualitative or quantitative substantial investment.

Database Right: “a monstrous caricature of true intellectual property laws” (Reichman and Samuelson 1997, p. 164).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 10 (1) of the Database Directive.

  2. 2.

    Article 10 (1) (2) and (3) of the Database Directive. Databases are dynamic works and their economic value is increased by its constant update. This means that any substantial change such as the correction, deletion or updating of the current data of a database which is considered to be substantial can enjoy another 15 years of database right protection. See Reed and Angel (2007, p. 423).

  3. 3.

    Article 7 (1) and Recitals 7, 13, 14, 17 and 40 of the Database Directive; Bently and Sherman (2009, pp. 313–314).

  4. 4.

    Waelde and McGingley (2005, p. 78).

  5. 5.

    Sundara Rajan (2011, p. 286).

  6. 6.

    Kingston (2010, p. 112).

  7. 7.

    Bently and Sherman (2009, pp. 310–311).

  8. 8.

    Kingston (2010, p. 171).

  9. 9.

    Internet Users Statistics, [online]. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage. Accessed 10 May 2019.

  10. 10.

    Article 5 of the WCT. See also WIPO (2004, pp. 274, 441).

  11. 11.

    Article 3 of the WCT.

  12. 12.

    Reinbothe and Von Lewinski (2007, pp. 486–494), Sell (2003, p. 27).

  13. 13.

    Article 10.2 TRIPS Agreement, Yamane (2011, introduction, p. 158), WIPO (2004, p. 441).

  14. 14.

    Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonization of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society [hereinafter the INFOSOC Directive].

  15. 15.

    Article 3 (1) of the Database Directive; Gasaway (2006).

  16. 16.

    Kroes (2010, pp. 8–9), Wery (2015, p. 1); see also Recitals 1 and 4 of the Database Directive.

  17. 17.

    See University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601. In this case, certain mathematics exam papers were regarded to be original works as they originated from the author even though there was no creativity involved but rather sufficient skill, labor, and judgment; see also Waelde et al. (2013, p. 47), Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273 (HL), Aplin and Davis (2013, p. 94).

  18. 18.

    Derclaye (2008b, pp. 45–46), Kaye (2010).

  19. 19.

    Recitals 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Database Directive.

  20. 20.

    Kaye (2010).

  21. 21.

    Recitals 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Database Directive.

  22. 22.

    Wery (2015, p. 1); Recital 5 of the Database Directive.

  23. 23.

    Kur and Dreir (2013, p. 267).

  24. 24.

    Grosheide (2002, p. 39).

  25. 25.

    Spinello and Bottis (2009, p. 75).

  26. 26.

    Helling (2004, p. 545).

  27. 27.

    Cleveland and Cleveland (2001, p. 48).

  28. 28.

    Baeza-Yates and Ribeiro-Neto (1999, pp. 99–101).

  29. 29.

    Grossman and Frieder (2004, p. 105).

  30. 30.

    The term thesaurus comes from the Greek language which means a “storehouse.” The most famous thesaurus was created by Peter Mark Roget in 1852 who arranged English words and phrases not in the typical alphabetical order but in proportion to the ideas they express. See Gilchrist (1971, p. 4).

  31. 31.

    Aitchison et al. (2000, p. 1).

  32. 32.

    Chan and Pollard (1988).

  33. 33.

    PubMed, [online]. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. Accessed 12 February 2019.

  34. 34.

    ExPASy Bioinformatics Resource Portal, [online]. Available at: http://web.expasy.org/docs/swiss-prot_guideline.html [Accessed 12 February 2019].

  35. 35.

    Markel and León (2003, p. 26).

  36. 36.

    Williams et al. (2005, pp. 12–13).

  37. 37.

    Article 7 of the Database Directive.

  38. 38.

    Recitals 7, 40, of the Database Directive.

  39. 39.

    Article 7 of the Database Directive.

  40. 40.

    Lesk (2008, p. 153). For example, the Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) is a compilation of data on protein and sequence which is manually annotated with information deriving from literature. See Williams et al. (2005, p. 18).

  41. 41.

    Reed and Angel (2007, p. 398).

  42. 42.

    Reed and Angel (2007, p. 398).

  43. 43.

    Reed and Angel (2007, pp. 398–399).

  44. 44.

    Le Monde v Microfor, Cass., 9 November 1983 [1984-5/1] DIT 20-23, comment Mignot.

  45. 45.

    Derclaye (2008b, p. 44).

  46. 46.

    Van Dale Lexicografie B.V. v. Rudolf Jan Romme case. In: Dommering and Hugenholtz (1991) (eds).

  47. 47.

    Commission of the European Communities (1998).

  48. 48.

    Van Dale Lexicografie B.V. v. Rudolf Jan Romme case.

  49. 49.

    Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

  50. 50.

    Derclaye (2008b, pp. 44–45).

  51. 51.

    Sherman and Bently (1999, pp. 43 and 206).

  52. 52.

    Radin et al. (2004, pp. 318–319). For the precedents of the “sweat of the brow” doctrine see Schroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 566 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1977); Adventures in God Eating, Inc. v. Best Places to Eat, 131 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1942); Jeweler’s Circular Publishing Co. v. Keystone Publishing Co. v. Edward Thompson Co., 169 F. 833 (C.C.E.D.N.Y. 1909).

  53. 53.

    Derclaye (2008b, p. 45).

  54. 54.

    Derclaye (2008b, p. 45).

  55. 55.

    Football Dataco and others v Yahoo and others, Case C-604/10, 1 March 2012, [hereinafter the Dataco v Yahoo case].

  56. 56.

    Cook (2012).

  57. 57.

    Maggs (2012).

  58. 58.

    Declaye (2012).

  59. 59.

    Derclaye (2008b, p. 46).

  60. 60.

    Sui Generis is a Latin moniker which means “of its own kind”. See: Duhaime.org, Learn Law, Dictionary of Latin Terms, [online]. Available at: www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Category/LatinLawTermsDictionary.aspx. Accessed 15 December 2018].

  61. 61.

    Derclaye (2008b, p. 46).

  62. 62.

    Article 1 (2) of the Database Directive.

  63. 63.

    Spinello and Bottis (2009, p. 85).

  64. 64.

    Bovenberg (2006, p. 175).

  65. 65.

    C490/14, Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH. On October 29, 2015, the CJEU was called upon to clarify the definition of “database” in the case between the Federal State of Bavaria and the Austrian publisher Verlag Esterbauer. In this case, the Austrian publisher has allegedly infringed database rights by scanning topographic maps from the Land of Bavaria’s database. The question raised to the CJEU was whether geographic data must be regarded as falling under the definition of Article 1 (2) of the Database Directive. Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that geographical databases fall within the scope of database rights. For a commentary of the case see Sinodinou (2015).

  66. 66.

    Mars UK Ltd. v Teknowledge Ltd. [1999] EWHC 226 [the “Mars” case].

  67. 67.

    Davison (2003, p. 71); see also Aplin (2005, pp. 45–46).

  68. 68.

    Stamatoudi (2000, pp. 23–24).

  69. 69.

    Recital 17 of the Database Directive.

  70. 70.

    Derclaye (2008b, p. 62).

  71. 71.

    Stamatoudi (2000, p. 24).

  72. 72.

    Aplin (2005, pp. 46–49).

  73. 73.

    Aplin (2005, p. 48). Virtua Cop is a multimedia video game, where two cops follow a criminal band through a series of investigations where the real players have to follow a series of cues in order to achieve these objectives. This means that in order to pass to the next level certain actions and tasks have to be completed. When the followers give different responses then certain variations occur. This was the video game in the case Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd (1997), 37 IPR 462 [“Galaxy Electronics”].

  74. 74.

    Aplin (2005, p. 48).

  75. 75.

    Stamatoudi (2000, pp. 24–25).

  76. 76.

    Aplin (2005, pp. 48–49).

  77. 77.

    Stamatoudi (2000, pp. 24–25).

  78. 78.

    Stamatoudi (2000, p. 25).

  79. 79.

    Davison (2003, p. 87).

  80. 80.

    Article 7 (2) (a) of the Database Directive.

  81. 81.

    Davison (2003, p. 87).

  82. 82.

    Stokes (2009, p. 62).

  83. 83.

    Davison (2003, p. 87).

  84. 84.

    C-304/07 Directmedia GmbH v Albert-Ludwig Universität Freiburg [hereinafter the Directmedia case].

  85. 85.

    Barnitzke et al. (2011a, p. 140).

  86. 86.

    Barnitzke et al. (2011a, p. 140).

  87. 87.

    Barnitzke et al. (2011a, pp. 140–141).

  88. 88.

    Barnitzke et al. (2011a, pp. 140–141); see also Barnitze et al. (2011, pp. 80) et seq.

  89. 89.

    C-304/07 Directmedia GmbH v Albert-Ludwig Universität Freiburg at [21].

  90. 90.

    Barnitze et al. (2011, p. 85).

  91. 91.

    C-304/07 Directmedia GmbH v Albert-Ludwig Universität Freiburg at [59].

  92. 92.

    MacQueen et al. (2011, p. 221).

  93. 93.

    MacQueen et al. (2011, pp. 221–222).

  94. 94.

    Apis-Hristovich EOOD v Lakorda AD [2009] 3 CMLR 3 (ECJ).

  95. 95.

    MacQueen et al. (2011, p. 221).

  96. 96.

    Exchange Communications Ltd. v Masheder [2009] CSOH 135.

  97. 97.

    MacQueen et al. (2011, pp. 221–222).

  98. 98.

    The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd. [the BHB case], ECJ, nr. C-203/02, 9 November 2004, (United Kingdom). Fixtures Marketing Ltd. v Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Po- dosfairou [the OPAP case], ECJ-C-444/02, 9 November 2004, (Greece). Fixtures Marketing Ltd. v Oy Veikkaus AB, ECJ – C-46/02, 9 November 2004, (Finland). Fixtures Marketing Ltd. v Svenska Spel AB, ECJ – C- 338/02, 9 November 2004, (Sweden).

  99. 99.

    Barnitzke et al. (2011b, p. 86), see also Leistner (2010, p. 15), Papakonstantinou (2010, p. 494), Ito (2011, pp. 222) et seq.

  100. 100.

    Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Oy Veikkaus decision at [44].

  101. 101.

    Barnitzke et al. (2011b, p. 86); see also Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Oy Veikkaus decision at [10] and [11].

  102. 102.

    See Collins Shorter Dictionary & Thesaurus, “Spin-off,” p. 705.

  103. 103.

    Gaster (2005, pp. 129–135).

  104. 104.

    Rowland and MacDonald (2005, p. 92).

  105. 105.

    NV Holdingmaatschappij de Telegraaf v Nederlandse Omroep Stichting [2002] ECDR 8 Court of Appeal of The Hague, [the Telegraaf case].

  106. 106.

    The Telegraaf case at [16].

  107. 107.

    Algemeen Dagblad v Eureka Internetdiensten, [the kranten.com case] [2002] ECDR 1.

  108. 108.

    Rowland and MacDonald (2005, pp. 89–90).

  109. 109.

    Davison and Hugenholz (2005, p. 4).

  110. 110.

    Rowland and MacDonald (2005, p. 92).

  111. 111.

    Davison and Hugentholz (2005, p. 4).

  112. 112.

    BHB Decision at [30].

  113. 113.

    Football Dataco Ltd and other companies v Sportradar GMBH and another company; Football Dataco Ltd and other companies v Stan James Abingdon Ltd and other companies: Chancery Division (Mr. Justice Floyd): 8 May 2012 [hereinafter the Dataco case].

  114. 114.

    Alsop (2012).

  115. 115.

    Alsop (2012).

  116. 116.

    Dataco case, at [60].

  117. 117.

    Osborne (2012).

  118. 118.

    Osborne (2012).

  119. 119.

    Bently and Sherman (2009, p. 258).

  120. 120.

    Article 9 (c) of the Database Directive.

  121. 121.

    Colston and Middleton (2005, pp. 282–283).

  122. 122.

    Colston and Middleton (2005, p. 283).

  123. 123.

    Recital 45 of the Database Directive.

  124. 124.

    Colston and Middleton (2005, p. 283).

  125. 125.

    Bovenberg (2006, p. 177).

  126. 126.

    Bovenberg (2006, p. 177).

  127. 127.

    Corrales Compagnucci and Frakgouli (2009).

  128. 128.

    Corrales Compagnucci and Frakgouli (2009).

  129. 129.

    Bovenberg (2006, p. 178).

  130. 130.

    Article 10 (1) of the Database Directive.

  131. 131.

    Article 10 (3) of the Database Directive.

  132. 132.

    Kalyvas (2015, p. 1).

  133. 133.

    Dumbill (2012), loc. 30.

  134. 134.

    Dumbill (2012), loc. 30.

  135. 135.

    See, generally, Chen et al. (2014, p. 12); Pellegrin (2014, p. 345).

  136. 136.

    Kalyvas (2015, p. 1).

  137. 137.

    Data mining is a fast-growing technology in the fields of knowledge discovery and decision-making processes. This technology helps to provide a more meaningful understanding of large data sets. Data mining tools can be found in various fields of computing, businesses and science such customer transactions, manufacturing, bioinformatics, geodata information services, audit systems, etc. See Adhikari and Adhikari (2015, pp. 4–5).

  138. 138.

    The study of the discipline of AI started in 1956 at the Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. Originally the concept of AI was conceived as “a set of algorithms to process symbols.” This initiative led to numerous advances and applications very useful on the Internet as well as other fields of computing and electronics such as search engines, consumer electronics, automobiles, and different kinds of software, voice recognition applications. By and large, AI focuses on certain aspects or specialized “intelligent” capabilities of various computing systems which is now expanding to other areas for the study of the human brain and body and the interrelation with its environment. This is revolutionizing our way of thinking that goes beyond its original conception. For example, it provides useful information for analyzing corporations, groups of agents and network embedded systems. See Lungarella et al. (2007, p. 1); Wang and Goertzel (2007) (eds), p. 1.

  139. 139.

    See Pries and Dunnigan (2015), Stimmel (2015), Loshin (2013), Bhatnagar and Srinivasa (2013) (eds).

  140. 140.

    Mayer-Schoenberger and Cukier (2013, pp. 1–7, 12–18, 98–197).

  141. 141.

    See Google.org Flu Trends, How does this work? https://www.google.org/flutrends/about/how.html. Accessed 10 November 2016.

  142. 142.

    Mayer-Schoenberger and Cukier (2013, pp. 1–7, 12–18, 98–197).

  143. 143.

    CERN, Computing: Experiments at CERN generate colossal amounts of data. The Data Centre stores it and sends it around the world for analysis, [online]. Available at: http://home.web.cern.ch/about/computing. Accessed 10 November 2018.

  144. 144.

    For example, Big Data techniques and technologies in geoinformation. See, generally, Karimi (2014) (ed).

  145. 145.

    Marx (2013, pp. 255–160).

  146. 146.

    Marx (2013, pp. 255–160).

  147. 147.

    Marx (2013, pp. 255–160).

  148. 148.

    Davison and Hugenholtz (2005, pp. 113–118).

  149. 149.

    Hugenholtz (2004).

  150. 150.

    Landgericht München I, Urteil vom 9. 11. 2005 - 21 O 7402/02 [Topografische Kartenblätter], GRUR 2006, 225.

  151. 151.

    Corrales Compagnucci and Fragkouli (2009, pp. 6–10).

  152. 152.

    Oliva and Corrales Compagnucci (2011, pp. 226–228).

  153. 153.

    C490/14, Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH.

  154. 154.

    C490/14 at [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10].

  155. 155.

    See Judgments in Fixtures Marketing, C444/02, [the OPAP case], C338/02, C46/02, The BHB case, C203/02, and also Football Dataco and Others, C604/10, [Dataco v Yahoo case].

  156. 156.

    C490/14 at [29].

  157. 157.

    C490/14 at [19].

  158. 158.

    See, generally, Mandery (2014); Muir (2010, pp. 250–283).

  159. 159.

    Elegido (1993, p. 69).

  160. 160.

    Article 13 of the Database Directive confers the possibility to protect databases via contractual agreements in addition to the database right, and, Article 15 states that “any contractual provision contrary to Articles 6 (1) and 8 shall be null and void.” Article 6 (1) refers to the performance by the lawful user of a database and Article 8 to the rights and obligations of lawful users.

  161. 161.

    Davison (2003, p. 40).

  162. 162.

    Davison (2003, p. 40).

  163. 163.

    Davison (2003, p. 40).

  164. 164.

    Davison (2003, p. 40).

  165. 165.

    Davison (2003, p. 40).

  166. 166.

    Ryanair Ltd. V PR Aviation BV, Case C-30/14 (The Netherlands) [the Ryanair case].

  167. 167.

    Ryanair Ltd. V PR Aviation BV at [15].

  168. 168.

    PR Aviation, [online]. Available at: http://www.euronet.nl/users/rvh/PR-Aviation/PRabout.htm. Accessed 10 May 2019.

  169. 169.

    Ryanair Ltd. V PR Aviation BV at [17].

  170. 170.

    Ryanair Ltd. V PR Aviation BV at [16].

  171. 171.

    Ryanair Ltd. V PR Aviation BV at [16].

  172. 172.

    See Ryanair [online]. Available at: http://www.ryanair.com. Accessed 10 May 2010.

  173. 173.

    See Ryanair Terms and Conditions [online]. Available at: http://www.ryanair.com/en/terms-of-use/. Accessed 10 May 2010.

  174. 174.

    Articles 6 (1), 8 and 15 of the Database Directive.

  175. 175.

    Ryanair Ltd. V PR Aviation BV at [46].

  176. 176.

    At the time of writing this book, the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam rendered its judgment on November 22, 2016 in the case of Pearson Assessment and Information against Bär Software [the “Pearson” case]. The judgement seems relevant in light of the CJEU’s earlier ruling in the Ryanair case. In this case, Pearson published psychological information (test results, questionnaires, score form, etc.) on a database available for the benefit of research, diagnosis and medical advice. Bär software extracted and used some of these data from Pearson’s database without permission. The legal dispute between Pearson and Bär was whether Pearson’s database was protected by copyrights and database rights. Both the District Court and Court of Appeal ruled that Pearson’s database was neither protected by copyrights nor by database rights. The most interesting part of the case concerned the contractual clauses in the users’ manual. The manual contained a paragraph which prohibited the extraction and re-utilization of any part of Pearson’s database without authorization. One would presume that such passage was valid given that the database did not fall under the scope of the Database Directive. However, the court ruled that it does not matter for the outcome of the case whether the passage is part of the contract since the passage does not protect the database owner either way. This decision seemed to narrow and also blurred even more the scope of protection of databases. See Pearson Assessment and Information B.V. v Bär Software.

  177. 177.

    Derclaye (2008a).

References

  • Adhikari A, Adhikari J (2015) Advanced in knowledge discovery in databases, intelligent systems reference library, preface, vol 79. Springer, Cham, pp 4–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Aitchison J, Gilchrist A, Bawden D (2000) Thesaurus construction and use: a practical manual, 4th edn. Aslib IMI, London, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsop M (2012) Data on live football was “obtained” rather than “created” and thus could be the subject of database rights, Charles Russell LLP http://www.mondaq.com/x/185708/data+protection/Data+On+Live+Football+Was+Obtained+Rather+Than+Created+And+Thus+Could+Be+The+Sub-ject+Of+Database+Rights. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Aplin T (2005) Copyright law in the digital society: the challenges of multimedia. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 45–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Aplin T, Davis J (2013) Intellectual property law: text, cases, and materials, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 94

    Google Scholar 

  • Baeza-Yates R, Ribeiro-Neto B (1999) Modern information retrieval. Addison Wesley Longman, ACM Press Books, New York, pp 99–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnitzke B, Corrales pagnucci M, Frakgouli A (2009) Legal issues in biological databases: a sui generis approach, paper presented at the 2nd international seminar of information law (ISIL), Corfu, Greece, 26 June 2009. In: Bottis M (ed) A world for information law, Proceedings of the 2nd ISIL 2009, Ionian University, Nomiki Vivliothiki, Corfu

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnitzke B, Corrales Compagnucci M, Forgó N (2012) Aspectos Legales de la Computación en la Nube: Seguridad de Datos y Derechos de Propiedad sobre los mismos, locs. 637 et seq., Kindle Edition. Editorial Albremática S.A., Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Bently L, Sherman B (2009) Intellectual property law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 310

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessmer N (2013) Cloud computing for small business, loc. 24, Kindle Edition

    Google Scholar 

  • Black N (2012) Cloud computing for lawyers. American Bar Association, Chicago, p 211

    Google Scholar 

  • Bort J (2011) 10 technologies that will change the world in the next 10 years. NetworkWorld. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2179278/lan-wan/10-technologies-that-will-change-the-world-in-the-next-10-years.html. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Butler B (2012) Cloud computing’s most over-hyped terms. http://www.computerworlduk.com/indepth/cloud-computing/3376086/cloud-computings-most-over-hyped-terms/?intcmp=most_pop;cldcmptng;6. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Buyya R et al (2009) Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Futur Gener Comput Syst 25(6):599–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrol C (2014) What’s a cloud services broker, and why do you need one? http://www.cio.com/article/2462417/cloud-computing/cloud-computing-whats-a-cloud-services-broker-and-why-do-you-need-one.html. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Cherry D (2008) Scaling the database out, not up. IT Knowledge Exchange. http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/scaling-the-database-out-not-up/. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Columbus L (2013) Top 12 sites for free cloud computing & enterprise software research. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2013/08/25/top-12-sites-for-free-cloud-computing-enterprise-software-research/. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Columbus L (2014) Roundup of cloud computing forecasts and market estimates. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2014/03/14/roundup-of-cloud-computing-forecasts-and-market-estimates-2014/. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Davison M (2003) The legal protection of databases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 71

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison M, Hugenholtz P (2005) Football fixtures, horse races and spin-offs: the ECJ domesticates the database right. EIPR 3:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye E (2008a) Database rights are too tough on business, says expert http://www.out-law.com/page-9406. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Derclaye E (2008b) The legal protection of databases: a comparative analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 45–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye E (2012) Football Dataco: skill and labour is dead! Kluwer Copyright Blog http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2012/03/01/football-dataco-skill-and-labour-is-dead/. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Dommering E, Hugenholtz P (eds) (1991) Protecting works of fact: copyright, freedom of expression, and information law. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumbill E (2012) Getting up to speed with big data: what is big data? loc. 30. In: O’Reilly Media, Big data: current perspectives from O’Reilly Media. O’Reilly Media Inc., Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Elegido J (1993) A basic rationale for contracts, Persona y Derecho 28:69 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2515272. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Gasaway L (2006) Databases and the law, Cyberspace law course, Spring 2006. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaster J (2005) “Obtinere” of data in the eyes of the ECJ: how to interpret the database directive after the British Horseracing Board Ltd. et al v William Hill Organization Ltd. Comput Law Rev Int 6(5):129–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist A (1971) The thesaurus in retrieval. Aslib IMI, London, p 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosheide F (2002) Database protection—the European way. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 8:39. In: Symposium on intellectual property, digital technology & electronic commerce. http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol8/iss1/4. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Grossman D, Frieder O (2004) Information retrieval: algorithms and heuristics. The information retrieval series, vol 15, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, p 105

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Helling E (2004) Retrieving the sources of legal decision-making, technical possibilities and related legal issues. In: Wahlgren P (ed) Scandinavian studies in law, vol 47. Stockholm, p 545

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholzt P (2004) Abuse of database right: sole-source information banks under the EU database directive. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/abuseofdatabaseright.html. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Ito A (2011) Legal aspects of satellite remote sensing. Studies in space law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 222 et seq

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyvas J (2015) A big data primer for executives. In: Kalyvas J, Overly M (eds) Big data: a business and legal guide. CRC Press, Boca Ratón, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Karimi H (ed) (2014) Big data: techniques and technologies in geoinformation. CRC Press, Boca Ratón

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye L (2010) The directive on the legal protection of databases of March 11 1996: does it have a future? http://copyright-debate.co.uk/?p=154. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Kingston W (2010) Beyond intellectual property: matching information protection to innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 112

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes Q (2010) E-business law of the European Union, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 8–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A, Dreir T (2013) European intellectual property law: text, cases & materials. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 267

    Google Scholar 

  • Leistner M (2010) Der Rechtsschutz von Datenbanken im deutschen und europäischen Recht: Eine Untersuchung zur Richtlinie 96/9/EG und zu ihrer Umsetzung in das deutsche Urheberrechtsgesetz, vol 34 de Urheberrechtliche Abhandlungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Ausländisches und Internationales Patent-, Urheber- und Wettbewerbsrecht. Beck C. H., Munich, p 15

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesk A (2008) Introduction to bioinformatics, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 153

    Google Scholar 

  • Loshin D (2013) Big data analytics: from strategic planning to enterprise integration with tools, techniques, NoSQL, and graph. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Lungarella M et al (2007) AI in the 21st century—with historical reflections. In: Lungarella M et al (eds) 50 years of artificial intelligence: essays dedicated to the 50th anniversary of artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • MacQueen H et al (2011) Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 221

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggs A (2012) Are you creating data? Then the database directive is (probably) not for you! Cookies on the Wragge & Co website http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/are-you-creating-data-then-the-database-directive/. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Mandery M (2014) Party autonomy in contractual and non-contractual obligations: a European and anglo-common law perspective on the freedom of choice of law in the Rome I regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations and the Rome II regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, comparative and international law studies (Book 189). Peter Lang GmbH., Frankfurt am Main, pp 1–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Markel S, León D (2003) Sequence analysis in a nutshell: a guide to common tools and databases, 1st edn. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, p 26

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx V (2013) Biology: the big challenges of big data. Nature 498:255–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schoenberger B, Cukier K (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. John Murray Publishers, London, pp 1–7, 12–18, 98–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir H (2010) “Party autonomy” in international contracts: from the makings of a myth to the requirements of global governance. Eur Rev Contract Law (ERCL) 6(3):250–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliva M, Corrales Compagnucci M (2011) Law meets biology: are our databases eligible for legal protection? SCRIPTed 8(3):226–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne C (2012) No spin-off: database rights subsist in live football data—the high court gives its judgment in the Football Dataco v Sportradar case http://www.osborneclarke.com/connected-insights/publications/no-spin-database-rights-subsist-live-football-data/. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Papakonstantinou V (2010) Intellectual property rights: the security perspective. In: Jahankhani H et al (eds) Handbook of electronic security and digital forensics. World Scientific, New Jersey, p 494

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrin T (2014) Economics of big data: a value perspective on state of the art and future trends. In: Akerkar R (ed) Big data computing. CRC Press, Boca Ratón, p 345

    Google Scholar 

  • Pries K, Dunnigan R (2015) Big data analytics: a practical guide for managers. CRC Press, Boca Ratón

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radin M, Rothchild J, Silverman G (2004) Intellectual property and the internet. Foundation Press, New York, pp 318–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed C, Angel J (2007) Computer law: the law and regulation of information technology, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 423

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman J, Samuelson P (1997) Intellectual property rights in data. Vanderbilt Law Rev 50(51):164

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinbothe J, Von Lewinski S (2007) The WIPO Treaties 1996: the WIPO copyright treaty and the WIPO performances and phonograms treaty—commentary and legal analysis. Tottel Publishing Ltd, West Sussex, pp 486–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland D, MacDonald E (2005) Information technology law, 3rd edn. Cavendish Publishing Ltd., London, p 92

    Google Scholar 

  • Sell S (2003) Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 27

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman B, Bently L (1999) The making of modern intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 43 and 206

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinello R, Bottis M (2009) A defense of intellectual property rights. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 75

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatoudi I (2000) To what extent are multimedia products databases? In: Stamatoudi I, Torremans P (eds) Copyright in the new digital environment: the need to redesign copyright. Perspectives on intellectual property law, vol 8. Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London, pp 23–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Stimmel C (2015) Big data analytics strategies for the smart grid. CRC Press, Boca Ratón

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes S (2009) Digital copyright: law and practice. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 62

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundara Rajan M (2011) Moral Rights: principles, practice and new technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 286

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelde C, MacGinley M (2005) Public domain, public interest, public funding: focusing on the three Ps in scientific research. SCRIPTed—J Law Technol Soc 2(1):78

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelde C et al (2013) Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P, Goertzel B (eds) (2007) Advances in artificial general intelligence: concepts, architectures and algorithms. In: Proceedings of the AGI workshop 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Wery E (2015) Legal protection of databases. http://www.ulys.net/up-load/file/Database.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Williams A et al (2005) Biological databases: infrastructure, content and integration. In: Azuaje F, Dopazo J (eds) Data analysis and visualization in genomics and proteomics. Wiley, Chichester, pp 12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO (2004) WIPO intellectual property handbook: policy, law and use, 2nd edn. WIPO publication no. 489 (E), pp 274, 441

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamane H (2011) Interpreting TRIPS: globalization of intellectual property rights and access to medicines, introduction. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 158

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Dr. Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci

Authors
  1. Dr. Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Corrales Compagnucci, M. (2020). Database Rights in Big Data and the Cloud—Main Legal Considerations. In: Big Data, Databases and "Ownership" Rights in the Cloud. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0349-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0349-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0348-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0349-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation