数据库权利的再审查——以euccases (CV-Online拉脱维亚诉瓜类)和欧盟数据库指令的修订趋势为重点

Hyun-Kyung Kim
{"title":"数据库权利的再审查——以euccases (CV-Online拉脱维亚诉瓜类)和欧盟数据库指令的修订趋势为重点","authors":"Hyun-Kyung Kim","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Even in Europe, where database rights(Sui Generis Database Rights) were first created, questions about the utility of these rights have been raised and discussions for revision is going on. We, who benchmarked these European cases at the time, also need to pay attention to the changes in EU. Therefore, in this study, the problems of the database rights were analyzed and future improvement tasks were derived. The results of the s tudy a re a s follows. \nFirst, the EU is changing the criteria for judging database rights infringement through the CJEU decision. In order to accommodate the innovation of data, the creation of added value through reuse of users and competitors and the possibility of innovation are accepted as the criteria for judging infringement. We also need to take this into account in our “significant investment” and “determination of infringement”. \nSecond, it is necessary to think about the extension of the exception range of the database right. In Europe, through a separate legislative measure called the Data Act, a wide range of exceptions are being allowed by excluding the database right for databases acquired or created by the use of products or services. This is premised on the premise that the establishment and utilization of databases in various artificial intelligence services, including IoT, is essential anyway, so there is no need to induce investment by guaranteeing sui generis rights. As such, in certain cases, it is necessary to review the introduction of regulations that restrict database rights. \nThird, like public works, free use of public databases needs to be introduced. Public databases are already trying to create added value through private use through other individual laws. In addition, it is questionable whether the criteria for judging infringement, such as ‘significant investment’ and ‘risk of recovery of investment’, can be applied to the act of creating a database funded by the state finances. Therefore, it is necessary to review the introduction of database rights restrictions on public works.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-examination of database rights - Focused on the revision trend of EUcases (CV-Online Latvia v Melons) and EU Database Directive -\",\"authors\":\"Hyun-Kyung Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Even in Europe, where database rights(Sui Generis Database Rights) were first created, questions about the utility of these rights have been raised and discussions for revision is going on. We, who benchmarked these European cases at the time, also need to pay attention to the changes in EU. Therefore, in this study, the problems of the database rights were analyzed and future improvement tasks were derived. The results of the s tudy a re a s follows. \\nFirst, the EU is changing the criteria for judging database rights infringement through the CJEU decision. In order to accommodate the innovation of data, the creation of added value through reuse of users and competitors and the possibility of innovation are accepted as the criteria for judging infringement. We also need to take this into account in our “significant investment” and “determination of infringement”. \\nSecond, it is necessary to think about the extension of the exception range of the database right. In Europe, through a separate legislative measure called the Data Act, a wide range of exceptions are being allowed by excluding the database right for databases acquired or created by the use of products or services. This is premised on the premise that the establishment and utilization of databases in various artificial intelligence services, including IoT, is essential anyway, so there is no need to induce investment by guaranteeing sui generis rights. As such, in certain cases, it is necessary to review the introduction of regulations that restrict database rights. \\nThird, like public works, free use of public databases needs to be introduced. Public databases are already trying to create added value through private use through other individual laws. In addition, it is questionable whether the criteria for judging infringement, such as ‘significant investment’ and ‘risk of recovery of investment’, can be applied to the act of creating a database funded by the state finances. Therefore, it is necessary to review the introduction of database rights restrictions on public works.\",\"PeriodicalId\":350441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korea Copyright Commission\",\"volume\":\"95 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korea Copyright Commission\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.29\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korea Copyright Commission","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

即使在数据库权利(特殊数据库权利)最早产生的欧洲,也提出了关于这些权利效用的问题,并正在进行修订的讨论。我们作为当时欧洲案例的标杆,也需要关注欧盟的变化。因此,本研究对数据库权限存在的问题进行了分析,并提出了今后的改进任务。研究结果如下:首先,欧盟正在通过欧洲法院的判决改变判定数据库侵权的标准。为了适应数据的创新,通过用户和竞争对手的再利用创造附加价值以及创新的可能性被接受为判断侵权的标准。我们在“重大投资”和“侵权认定”中也需要考虑到这一点。其次,有必要思考数据库权例外范围的延伸问题。在欧洲,通过一项名为《数据法》(Data Act)的单独立法措施,通过排除因使用产品或服务而获得或创建的数据库的数据库权,允许了广泛的例外情况。这样做的前提是,在包括物联网在内的各种人工智能服务中,数据库的建立和利用无论如何都是必不可少的,因此没有必要通过保障自成一体的权利来诱导投资。因此,在某些情况下,有必要审查限制数据库权利的法规的引入。第三,与公共工程一样,需要引入公共数据库的免费使用。公共数据库已经在尝试通过其他个别法律通过私人使用创造附加价值。此外,判定侵权的标准,如“重大投资”和“投资回收风险”是否适用于由国家财政资助建立数据库的行为,也是值得怀疑的。因此,有必要对公共工程引入数据库权利限制进行审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Re-examination of database rights - Focused on the revision trend of EUcases (CV-Online Latvia v Melons) and EU Database Directive -
Even in Europe, where database rights(Sui Generis Database Rights) were first created, questions about the utility of these rights have been raised and discussions for revision is going on. We, who benchmarked these European cases at the time, also need to pay attention to the changes in EU. Therefore, in this study, the problems of the database rights were analyzed and future improvement tasks were derived. The results of the s tudy a re a s follows. First, the EU is changing the criteria for judging database rights infringement through the CJEU decision. In order to accommodate the innovation of data, the creation of added value through reuse of users and competitors and the possibility of innovation are accepted as the criteria for judging infringement. We also need to take this into account in our “significant investment” and “determination of infringement”. Second, it is necessary to think about the extension of the exception range of the database right. In Europe, through a separate legislative measure called the Data Act, a wide range of exceptions are being allowed by excluding the database right for databases acquired or created by the use of products or services. This is premised on the premise that the establishment and utilization of databases in various artificial intelligence services, including IoT, is essential anyway, so there is no need to induce investment by guaranteeing sui generis rights. As such, in certain cases, it is necessary to review the introduction of regulations that restrict database rights. Third, like public works, free use of public databases needs to be introduced. Public databases are already trying to create added value through private use through other individual laws. In addition, it is questionable whether the criteria for judging infringement, such as ‘significant investment’ and ‘risk of recovery of investment’, can be applied to the act of creating a database funded by the state finances. Therefore, it is necessary to review the introduction of database rights restrictions on public works.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Limitations on Granting Copyrights to AI-Generated Works and Alternative Protection Methodologies The Meaning and Content of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a Standard for Constitutionality Review Determining Fair Use and the Role of Transformative Use Test: On the Rulings in Wofsy v. De Fontbrune Quo vadis, What will be the Future of Appropriation Art?: Focusing on “The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith” A Study on the Free Use of Public Works: Focused on the Seoul Central District Court’s 2019 Gadan 5207564 Decision
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1