Skip Navigation

International Journal of Law and Information Technology 2004 12(2):178-208; doi:10.1093/ijlit/12.2.178
© 2004 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Deveci, H. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Databases: Is Sui Generis a Stronger Bet Than Copyright?

Hasan A. Deveci1

1 MA, LLM, Dip.in Intellectual Property, GCert.Ed., Barrister Formerly lecturer at South Bank University

Originality as a requirement of copyright has attracted diverse interpretations both within and across legal systems. Why? Because, it seems, the courts have had to reconcile creativity favoured in civil law countries and industrious labour upheld in common law countries. By allowing for both alternatives the Database Directive (EC) injected a sense of commercial realism. The danger, however, is that the new sui generis right might monopolise information beyond the term granted to copyright. This assertion is explored in four stages. Part I examines ‘originality’ as a requirement of copyright. Part II considers changes in judicial attitudes in the US and the impact of Feist in common law countries. Part III focuses on the Directive. Part IV engages in comparative analysis of ‘originality’ and ‘investment’ as requirements for copyright and database rights respectively. Part V concludes that unless narrowly interpreted sui generis right risk outreaching copyright, granting more for less.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.