Database law
The Databases Act gives protection to the producer of a database if it is a database, or a systematically or methodically arranged collection whose acquisition, control or presentation of its contents qualitatively or quantitatively demonstrates substantial investment.
Infringement of database right
The Database Law protects against retrieval or reuse of its contents qualitatively or quantitatively. The Databases Act gives the producer of the database a number of rights, namely to authorize extraction or reuse or to claim prohibition thereof, as well as to claim damages and payment of profits and accountability.
There are a number of exceptions to database law, such as text and data mining. For example, there is no infringement of a database, by research organizations that have lawful access, to conduct text and data mining for the purpose of scientific research.
Duration of protection of a database
Database protection is also otherwise limited. Databases are protected for a period of 15 years. More precisely, article 6 of the Database Law provides that the database right arises at the time of completion of the production of the database, and it expires "on the expiration of fifteen years after January 1 of the year following the time of completion." The period of protection is thus limited in time.
Protection of Top 40 charts as a database?
The Dutch Top 40 Foundation argues that its Online Archive with all the Top 40 charts contained therein qualifies as a separate database. According to it, that database right allows it to act against the individual use of all Top 40 charts, including those older than fifteen years.
The Court of Appeal judges that:
'[that] Article 6(1) also determines when the database right arises, namely at the time when the production of the database is completed. Thus, if Article 6(1) is followed, it follows from the Foundation's assertions that the database right has not yet arisen. Paragraph 2 of Article 6 provides an alternative for the emergence of the database right, namely the time when an unfinished database is first made available to the public. The burden of proof and burden of proof of this rests on the Foundation. The Foundation has not asserted anything in this regard, so that the Court of Appeal cannot assess when the alleged database right to the Online Archive would have arisen, and the limitation period of Article 6(2) would have commenced.'
The Foundation further relies on substantial changes to the database, which would have taken place in a number of consecutive years (including in 2013). According to the Foundation, as a result, new rights have been created each time.
The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that it is up to the plaintiff to state and, if necessary, prove that after 2013, the defendant (the respondent on appeal) still retrieved or reused from the Online Archive. The Dutch Top 40 Foundation has failed to prove this, whereas the burden of proof rests with it.
Conclusion
.The conclusion from is that the claims are not allowable. It can be deduced from the judgment that producers of databases should be well aware of the provisions on the duration of protection of databases, and also that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that a database protected by a database right has been used or has the burden of proving that it has been unlawfully extracted or reused in a database law sense.
