Introduction

The case of Football Dataco Ltd & Ors v. Brittens Pools Ltd (In Action 3222) & Ors ([2010] 3 CMLR 25) was adjudicated by the England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) on April 23, 2010. This litigation centered on the infringement of copyright and database rights concerning annual football fixture lists published for the English and Scottish Premier Leagues and other football leagues.

The primary parties involved were the claimants—organizers of professional football matches in England and Scotland—and the defendants, which included Brittens Pools Limited, Yahoo! UK Ltd, Stan James (Abingdon) Ltd, Stan James Plc, and Enetpulse ApS. The crux of the dispute lay in whether the fixture lists enjoyed protection under the existing copyright framework and the sui generis database rights as delineated by European directives.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Floyd delivered a detailed judgment addressing three preliminary issues:

• Whether the fixture lists qualify as original literary works under Section 3A(2) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988).
• Whether substantial investment was made in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the fixture lists as per Regulation 12 of the Database Regulations.
• Whether copyright exists in the fixture lists irrespective of their status as databases.

The judgment concluded that while the fixture lists did not satisfy the requirements for the sui generis database right due to insufficient investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the data, they were nonetheless protected under database copyright. This form of copyright arises from the selection and arrangement of the data, qualifying as the author's own intellectual creation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key cases and legislative frameworks shaping the understanding of database and copyright law:

• Football League Limited v Littlewoods Pools [1959]: Established that fixture lists are protected as literary works due to the labor and skill involved in their compilation.
• Fixtures Marketing Limited (FML) Cases: Involved the application of the EU Database Directive in Finland, Sweden, and Greece, ultimately denying FML's claims based on the nature of investment.
• British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organisation Ltd [2004]: Clarified that the sui generis right does not extend to the creation of data but only to investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting existing data.
• Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009]: Highlighted the necessity of an author's intellectual creation in the expression of works to qualify for copyright.

These cases provided a foundational understanding of how database and copyright protections are interpreted, particularly concerning the criteria of originality and the nature of investment in data handling.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Floyd's legal reasoning hinged on dissecting the provisions of the CDPA 1988 and the EU Database Directive. The analysis involved:

• Definition and Protection Under Copyright: The court examined whether the fixture lists met the originality criteria by constituting the author's own intellectual creation through the selection and arrangement of data.
• Assessment of Sui Generis Database Rights: It was determined that the fixture lists did not involve substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the data independently of the creation process, thereby negating protection under the sui generis regime.
• Originality and Intellectual Creation: The selection and arrangement decisions made during the compilation of fixture lists involved judgment and discretion, satisfying the requirement for originality.

The court emphasized that the compilation process involved significant skill and labor, distinguishing it from mere "sweat of the brow" efforts, thereby meriting copyright protection under the database copyright category.

Impact

This judgment clarified the boundaries between different forms of intellectual property protection for databases. By affirming that fixture lists are protected under database copyright but not under the sui generis right, it provided a clear precedent for similar cases. The decision underscored the importance of the creative aspects in data compilation and influenced how future disputes over data-driven compilations are approached, particularly in sports and related industries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sui Generis Database Right

A special form of protection granted to database creators who have made a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting their database's contents. It protects against extraction or reutilization of the database's content.

Database Copyright

This form of copyright protects the selection and arrangement of data within a database, provided it constitutes the author's own intellectual creation. It does not protect the individual data entries themselves.

Selection or Arrangement

Refers to the process of choosing what data to include and how to organize it within a database. This must involve personal judgment and creativity to qualify for database copyright.

Author's Own Intellectual Creation

Requires that the work reflects the author's personal intellectual effort, such as judgment, taste, or discretion, in compiling and organizing the data.

Conclusion

The High Court's judgment in Football Dataco Ltd v Brittens Pools Ltd establishes a nuanced understanding of intellectual property protections applicable to database compilations. By determining that football fixture lists are protected under database copyright due to the original selection and arrangement of data, the court reinforced the significance of creative effort in data compilation. However, the dismissal of the sui generis right for these lists clarified the limitations of this protection, emphasizing that only substantial independent investment in handling data can qualify. This decision serves as a pivotal reference point for future legal determinations in the realm of database and copyright law, particularly within the sports industry.