The Concept of a Database in the European Union and Lithuanian Law
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The aim of the article is to analyse the definition of a database which is contained in Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of databases and to compare it with the definition used in Lithuanian Law on Authors and Neighbouring rights. The definition of a database is important for several reasons. First, it sets the boundaries of the protection available for databases. Second, the definition of a database as well as many others legal definitions are ambiqous and require further explanations. Third, the authentic translation of Directive differs in some aspects from text of the Directive in other languages. Finally there is inconsistency between the definition in directive and the definition used in Lithuanian Law on Authors and Neighbouring rights.
In the first part of the article the gradual development of definition of a database until its final version included in Directive is analysed. Then all the elements of definition are considered. Conclusion is given, that definition of database is extremely broad and lacks of clarity. Two requirements of a database that is „database can be in any form“ and it consist of „works, data or other materials“ make definition of a database extremely broad. Others attributes of database (collection, independent elements, systematical or methodical arrangement of elements, their capability of being individually accessed) are quite unclear and may be interpreted broadly. The last requirement that a database is not computer programs used in the making or operation of databases accessible by electronic means faces the same problem. Therefore court should exam all above mentioned attributes in every case individually.
The author suggests that strict distinction between systematical or methodical arrangement of elements and their capability of being individually accessed is impossible. If the first requirement is more suited to „hard–form“ databases, for example, phone books, the second one could be attributed to electronic databases only.
In the second part the author turns to compare definition of database, included in Directive and Law on Lithuanian Authors and Neighbouring rights with the Directive. Although Lithuanian law clearly seeks to incorporate the definition given in directive, it misses two of above mentioned attributes (independence of elements, and their capability of being individually accessed). Instead of that Lithuanian law states that a database should be accessed individually itself.
These inadequacies may violate the directive because they narrow protection of databases required by directive. On the other hand, they are not justified from the national position.
In the first part of the article the gradual development of definition of a database until its final version included in Directive is analysed. Then all the elements of definition are considered. Conclusion is given, that definition of database is extremely broad and lacks of clarity. Two requirements of a database that is „database can be in any form“ and it consist of „works, data or other materials“ make definition of a database extremely broad. Others attributes of database (collection, independent elements, systematical or methodical arrangement of elements, their capability of being individually accessed) are quite unclear and may be interpreted broadly. The last requirement that a database is not computer programs used in the making or operation of databases accessible by electronic means faces the same problem. Therefore court should exam all above mentioned attributes in every case individually.
The author suggests that strict distinction between systematical or methodical arrangement of elements and their capability of being individually accessed is impossible. If the first requirement is more suited to „hard–form“ databases, for example, phone books, the second one could be attributed to electronic databases only.
In the second part the author turns to compare definition of database, included in Directive and Law on Lithuanian Authors and Neighbouring rights with the Directive. Although Lithuanian law clearly seeks to incorporate the definition given in directive, it misses two of above mentioned attributes (independence of elements, and their capability of being individually accessed). Instead of that Lithuanian law states that a database should be accessed individually itself.
These inadequacies may violate the directive because they narrow protection of databases required by directive. On the other hand, they are not justified from the national position.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
