Less Is More? Protecting Databases in the EU after Ryanair

Matěj Myška, Jakub Harašta


This paper discussed the current status quo of legal protection of databases after the Ryanair case (C-30/14). The first part focuses on the subject matter, scope and limits of legal protection for databases according to the Directive 96/9/EC and the related relevant Court of Justice of the European Union case law. Next, it briefly discusses further possibilities of protection for databases not protected by the copyright and/or sui generis database rights. The second part analyses the recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case Ryanair (C-30/14). The third part then discusses the consequences of this decision as regards to potential monopolisation of synthetic data by contract. The conclusions are summed up in the final fourth part.


Database Protection, Copyright, Sui Generis Database Rights, Exceptions and Limitations, Contract Law, Ryanair Case, C-30/14, Directive 96/9/EC


Show references Hide references

[1] BEUNEN, Annemarie Christiane. Protection for databases The European Database Directive and its effects in the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom [online]. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen E.M. Meijers Institute of Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, Leiden University, 2007 [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. Series of the E.M. Meijers Institute of Legal Studies of Leiden University, 125. ISBN 978-90-5850-267-4. Available from: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/12038

[2] BORGHI, Maurizio; KARAPAPA, Stavroula. Contractual restrictions on lawful use of information: sole-source databases protected by the back door? European Intellectual Property Review. 2015, Vol. 37, Nr. 8, p. 505–514.

[3] BOTTIS, Maria. How Open Data Become Proprietary in the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: KATSIKAS, Sokratis K.; SIDERIDIS, Alexander B. (eds.). E-Democracy – Citizen Rights in the World of the New Computing Paradigms [online]. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015, Communications in Computer and Information Science, 570, p. 169–174 [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. ISBN 978-3-319-27163-7. Available from: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-27164-4_12

[4] BYGRAVE, Lee A. Information Concepts in Law: Generic Dreams and Definitional Daylight. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2015, Vol. 35, Nr. 1, p. 91–120. DOI:10.1093/ojls/gqu011.

[5] COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. DG INTERNAL MARKET AND SERVICES WORKING PAPER: First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the Legal Protection of Databases [online]. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities 2005 [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. Available from: ttp://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/databases/evaluation_report_en.pdf

[6] CONSONNI, Marco; ANSELMI, Ludovico. ECJ rules on screen-scraping of Ryanair’s database. E-Commerce Law and Policy. 2015, Vol. 17, Nr. 2, p. 5–7.

[7] CZYCHOWSKI, Christian. EuGH: Keine Anwendung der Vertragsbeschränkungen der Datenbank­RL auf nicht geschützte Datensammlung - Ryanair/PR Aviation. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. 2015, Vol. 117, Nr. 3, p. 253–256.

[8] DAVISON, Mark J. The Legal Protection of Databases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 358 p. ISBN 978-1-139-43565-9.

[9] DERCLAYE, Estelle. An Economic Analysis of the Contractual Protection of Databases. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy. Vol. 2005, Issue 2 (Fall 2015), p. 247–272.

[10] DERCLAYE, Estelle. Databases sui generis right: what is a substantial investment? A tentative definition. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 2005, Vol. 36, Nr. 1, p. 2–30.

[11] DERCLAYE, Estelle. The Legal Protection of Databases A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2008. ISBN 978-1-84720-133-1.

[12] DERCLAYE, Estelle. Database Directive. In: STAMATOUDI, Irini A.; TORREMANS, Paul (eds.). EU Copyright Law: A Commentary. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2014, Elgar Commentaries, p. 298–354. ISBN 978-1-78195-242-9.

[13] DE SANTIS, Frederica. ECJ clarifies Database Directive scope in screen scraping case. The Global Legal Post [online] b.n. 2016 [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. Available from: http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/global-view/ecj-clarifies-database-directive-scope-in-screen-scraping-case-128701/

[14] DUSOLLIER, Séverine. Tipping the Scale in Favor of the Right Holders: The European Anti-Circumvention Provisions. In: BECKER, Eberhard et al. (eds.). Digital Rights Management: Technological, Economic, Legal and Political Aspects. Berlin; New York: Springer, 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2770, p. 462–478. ISBN 3-540-40465-1.

[15] GROSHEIDE, F. Willem. SUI Generis Protection for Databases the European way: An Analysis. International Intellectual Property Law & Policy. 2000, Vol. 4, p. 68-1-68-16.

[16] GUPTA, Indranath; DEVAIAH, Vishwas H. The Database Directive “contracting out” bar: does it apply to unprotected databases? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 2015, vol. 10, Nr. 9, p. 669-672. DOI:10.1093/jiplp/jpv127.

[17] HERR, Robin Elizabeth. Is the Sui Generis Right a Failed Experiment: A Legal and Theoretical Exploration of How to Regulate Unoriginal Database Contents and Possible Suggestions for Reform. Copenhagen: DJØF Pub., 2008. ISBN 978-87-574-1881-1.

[18] HOEREN, Thomas. Dateneigentum: Versuch einer Anwendung von § 303a StGB im Zivilrecht. MultiMedia und Recht. 2013, Vol. 16, Nr. 8, p. 486–491.

[19] HUGENHOLTZ, P. Bernt. Program Schedules, Event Data and Telephone Subscriber Listings under the Database Directive - The ‘Spin-Off’ Doctrine in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. In: Eleventh Annual Conference on International IP Law & Policy [online]. New York. 2003 [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. Available from: http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/961

[20] HUGENHOLTZ, P. Bernt. Abuse of Database Right: Sole-source information banks under the EU Database Directive. In: Antitrust, Patent and Copyright [online]. 2004 [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. Available from: http://textlab.io/doc/9715910/abuse-of-database-right-sole-source-information-banks

[21] HUGENHOLTZ, P. Bernt. Database Directive. In: DREIER, Thomas et al. (eds.). Concise European Copyright Law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2006, p. 307–342. ISBN 90-411-2384-9.

[22] HUSOVEC, Martin. BGH: Screen Scraping Does Not Constitute Unfair Competition. Huťko´s Technology Law Blog [online]. 2014. [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. Available from: http://www.husovec.eu/search/label/data%20scraping

[23] HUSOVEC, Martin. End of (Meta) Search Engines in Europe, The. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property. 2014, Vol. 14, Nr. 1, p. 145–172.

[24] LEWINSKI, Silke von. Database Directive. In: WALTER, Michel M.; LEWINSKI, Silke von (eds.). European Copyright Law: A Commentary. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 678–828. ISBN 978-0-19-922732-7.

[25] MYSOOR, Poorna. Protecting the unprotected database. The Law Quarterly Review. 2015, Vol. 131, Nr. 4, p. 556–562.

[26] MYŠKA, Matěj; KOŠČÍK, Michal. Controlling Data in Networked Research. In: Internationales Rechtsinformatik Symposion: Tagungsband des 19. Internationales Rechtsinformatik Symposions. Salzburg: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft, 2016, p. 537–544. ISBN 978-3-903035-09-6.

[27] NETTLETON, Ewan. Poetic justice for owners of database right. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management. 2009, Vol. 16, Nr. 1, p. 57–60. DOI:10.1057/dbm.2009.2.

[28] QUAEDVLIEG, Antoon. Overlap/relationships between copyright and other intellectual property rights. In: DERCLAYE, Estelle (ed.). Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright. Cheltenham, UK : Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2009, Research handbooks in intellectual property, p. 480–516. ISBN 978-1-84720-392-2.

[29] RIEGER, Sören. Der rechtliche Schutz wissenschaftlicher Datenbanken. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 336 p. ISBN 978-3-16-150377-1.

[30] SYNODINOU, Tatiana. 20 years after the birth of the Database Directive, still mapping EU database law... Kluwer Copyright Blog [online]. 2015. [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. Available from: http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2015/12/15/20-years-after-the-birth-of-the-database-directive-still-mapping-eu-database-law/

[31] SYNODINOU, Tatiana. Ryanair Ltd v. PR Aviation BV: contracts, rights and users in a “low cost” database law. Kluwer Copyright Blog [online]. 2015. [cit. 30. 8. 2016]. Available from: http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2015/01/26/ryanair-ltd-v-pr-aviation-bv-contracts-rights-and-users-in-a-low-cost-database-law/

[32] TROSOW, Samuel E. Sui Generis Database Legislation: A Critical Analysis. Yale Journal of Law and Technology. 2004, Vol. 7, Nr. 2, p. 534-642.

[33] VIRTANEN, Perttu. Innoweb v Wegener: CJEU, Sui Generis database right and making available to the public – The war against the machines. European Journal of Law and Technology. 2014, Vol. 5, Nr. 2, p. 1-10.

[34] VOUSDEN, Stephen. Autonomy, comparison websites, and Ryanair. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 2015, Vol. 19, Nr. 4, p. 386–406.

[35] ZECH, Herbert. Information as Property. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law. 2015, Vol. 6, Nr. 3, p. 192–197. URN:NBN:DE:0009-29-43156 .

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2016-2-3

Copyright (c) 2016 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology