The database and data are different elements, but they are not unrelated. You can have data without a database — totally unstructured. You can’t however IMHO have a database without contents.

As a general rule, database copyright protects the selection and arrangement of the contents of the database. So this is how the database is structured. It can also protect other elements of the database, such as the field names.

EU database rights however protect the database when there has been a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying,or presenting the contents of the database.

In the Flickr example, one could perhaps both gain a database copyright and database rights over the database, depending on whether the relevant tests were met. One couldn’t however get database rights without “contents of a database”.

If what you are saying is that the copyrightable element — the selection and arrangement of the data — can be separated from the data and thus be independent of any data I have two thoughts.

One is that approaches what patents, and not copyright, would protect as it is an idea of how you arrange data. The second is that even if it is separable from data (which I still doubt) it still depends on it being a selection and arrangement of something. That thing is the data. So defining a database as done in the PDDL covers this IMHO.

The issue we may be having might be the difference between what a database “is” and what the law protects. Focusing just on the selection and arrangement (in your proposed definition) in the definition of the database doesn’t cover database rights, or indeed the other copyrightable elements of a database.

What may help is including an adapted version of the language that was in the other draft — Open Data Commons DBL — at the beginning of the PDDL:

2.2 Legal rights covered. This Licence covers the legal rights in the Database, including:

a. Database Rights. Database Rights only extend to the Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Data. Database Rights can apply even when there is no copyright over the Database. Database Rights can also apply when the Data is selected and arranged in a way that would not infringe applicable copyright.

b. Copyright. Any copyright or neighbouring rights in the Database. The copyright licensed includes any individual elements of the Database, but does not cover the copyright over the Data independent of this Database. See Section 2.4 for details. Copyright law varies between jurisdictions, but is likely to cover: the Database model or schema, which is the structure, arrangement, and organisation of the Database, and can also include the Database tables and table indexes; the data entry and output sheets; and the Field names of Data stored in the Database.

Thanks again.

I’ll talk more about the legal bits.

First your comment about the definition of data and database.

There is some ambiguity in the definition of “Data” and “Database” as defined in PDDL. The ambiguity is because the statement “This licence is intended for use on databases or their contents (”data”), either together or individually” (PDDL) and the definition of “Work” in PDDL consider “Data” and “Database” as two different entities. The following definition of “Database” may be more accurate:

“A systematic or methodical arrangement of Data that is individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this document”.

I don’t see an ambiguity here, but please comment on the licence itself so we can get a discussion started there about it. We want to work out any kinks in the beginning before it goes live. For your suggested change, I don’t see a difference from what you suggest to what is used in the PDDL:

A collection of Data arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this Document.

The formulation used in the PDDL tracks the definition of a database in the Article 1(2) of the Database Directive, and so has the advantage of using the formulation used in the relevant legislation.

The other issue is that the data and the database are in many ways treated differently under the law, and that is why they are separable under the PDDL. You could have a database of CC-licensed images off of Flickr for example. You can’t use the PDDL for the ‘data’ in this case — the contents of this database — because it is not yours to license. But you can still have copyright and database rights over the database as a whole and over the contents, which could be covered by the PDDL.

Now on to the other points related to the WSD. My understanding is that the WSD is not a licence or in fact a legal document. It might have a legal effect — an implied licence due to giving people permission to use the data — but that doesn’t make it a licence. This is the legal tool behind any expression of rights in a machine readable language. In practice someone might not have to read the PDDL under this implementation, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t need to be there.

The other element is that the PDDL can be used outside of the WSD.

Thanks for the comment.