On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 09:03:56AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > The directive is about database protection, not (only) about > copyright. It mainly shows *two* independent possibilities how database > are protectable: > > 1. Copyright protection: By accounting the creativity to produce the > database; this is article 3, and this is done by applying a > copyright. The article actually *limits* the reasons why a database can > be copyright protected, by specifying an exhaustive list (selection and > arrangement). Every database that does not follow this rules is not > copyright protected according to the directive. > > 2. "Sui Generis Right": By accounting the investment to create the > database. The directive allows (resp. requests from the EU countries to > allow) to protect this investment. This protection is however *not* > copyright protection. A database that was created with substantial > investment but without creativity in selection or arrangement is still > not protected by copyright, even when the maker decides to protect it > under article 7.
The Spanish LPI declaration included both in the copyright law. Well, actually is more complex than that, because if you read the article in BOE document, there is not a single reference to the word "copyright" there, instead, it refers to modifications to the LPI law. The LPI law is the document that defines how copyright protection works inside Spanish legal jurisdiction. Maybe they have a different interpretation, or they made a mistake including those terms there. In both cases, we would need more than good luck to convince government to change it, and currently, copyright it's beign used end enforced in all those cases, in spite of how much you disagree.
