192.com loses database decision to UK Royal Mail
Royal Mail has won the first round of a court action to protect its rights in a database known as its “postcode address file,” or PAF. The English High Court rejected an argument from the company behind 192.com that the PAF had been used under licence.
Database rights stem from a 1996 European Union Council Directive on the legal protection of databases. It grants copyright protection to database creators in the selection and arrangement of the information contained in databases, regardless of whether the database creator owns the copyright in the information contained within the database.
The Directive gives creators the right to control or prohibit temporary reproduction of all or substantial amounts of the database content but the extraction of insubstantial amounts of data is permitted.
Royal Mail built its PAF database over many years. It links postcodes to postal addresses, and is licensed out to “value added resellers” for use by them, their agents or their end users.
However, according to court papers, only one back up copy of PAF may be made, and PAF may only be used to change existing mailing list databases. PAF is not to be reproduced, published, sold, let, lent or disseminated in any other way.
Nor may the end user assign or sub-contract his licence. This means that the end user must use the PAF itself. It must not get a third party to use the PAF for it.
Royal Mail took action against i-CD Publishing (UK) Ltd, the company behind 192.com and publisher of a directory known as the UK Info Directory. It details the names, addresses and telephone numbers of over 44 million UK individuals and businesses. I-CD’s own marketing states that the addresses are PAF-validated.
Royal Mail alleges that the Directory uses data from PAF in breach of the group’s database rights. It bases its claim on i-CD’s statement that the contents have been “PAF-validated” because, explained the court:
“‘PAF validation’ is a process which would, when it is used, naturally result in the inclusion of data derived from PAF to a degree that would, if not authorised, give rise to liability for infringement of copyright and database rights.”
However, while i-CD accepted that the directory might contain “some data which has been cleansed by comparison with PAF,” it argued that “even if the limited use of PAF for the purposes of PAF-validation” required the licence of Royal Mail, such use was licensed.
Court papers showed that the data in question was defined as “Electoral Roll data” and had been PAF-validated by third parties indirectly authorised by Royal Mail to use the contents of its PAF database as they did.
In July, and as reported today in the OUT-LAW story at the link below, i-CD lost an attempt to use electoral roll data on other grounds.
I-CD therefore asked the court to rule that the PAF had been used under licence and did not infringe on copyright or database rights.
Geoffrey Hobbes QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, ruled that he could not make such a finding. Insufficient evidence had been presented to the court as to the data involved; the third parties involved; what was meant by the term “PAF validation”; how the validation had been carried out; and the effect this had.
The case continues.
