“The Database Directive”882 is widely implemented in Georgian copyright legislation. The
definition of database, provided in Georgian law on copyright and neighboring rights (“a collection of works, data or other material arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means"883), is almost literal translation of the
definition provided in the Directive,884 only the word “independent” is missing. In Armenian
law the first part of the definition of database is also similar to the definition provided in the Directive, but afterwards the following element is added to this definition: “the acquisition, verification or presentation thereof shall require substantial qualitative and (or) quantitative contribution”885. Russian Civil Code defines database in rather different manner, stating that
“database is an aggregate, presented in an objective form, of independent materials (articles, calculations, normative acts, court decisions and other similar materials) which are systematized so that these materials can be found and processed by means of a computer”,886 and the definition in the Azerbaijani law is similar, but the following element
is added: “the selection and placement of components result from creative work”887. The
definition in the Ukrainian law888 contains the elements of both of these definitions, and
Moldovan law, also adding several elements to the definition given in the Directive, provides the following version: “database means a compilation of data or other materials irrespective of whether or not they are protected by copyright or related rights, both in a machine - readable form and in other form, arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means”889.
882 Directive 96/9/EC.
883 Art. 4.m, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 884 Art. 1.2, Directive 96/9/EC.
885 Art. 58.1, Law of the Republic of Armenia on Copyright and Related Rights. 886 Art. 1260.1, Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
887 Art. 4, Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Copyright and Related Rights. 888 Art. 1, Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights.
162
Besides this definition, the entire chapter of the Georgian law (Chapter VII – Rights of makers of database) is dedicated to the sui generis rights of database makers. In this regard Moldovan law is slightly similar to Georgian law, where one chapter is dedicated to the public domain and database (referred as “other rights”)890. Such separation of the rights of
database makers underlines the sui generis character of these rights, since, in this regard, the database “is not a copyright and does not as such fit into any other general category of intellectual property right”891. This sui generis right is defined in Georgian law in the
following manner: “the maker of a database (which does not represent a work), who proves that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively substantial investment in either the obtaining, verifying or presenting of the contents of the database, shall enjoy the exclusive right to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or substantial part, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, of the contents of that database”,892 which implements the
provision of the EU Directive893. The terms ‘extraction’ and ‘re-utilization’894 are also defined
in Georgian law similarly as it is provided in the Directive895.
Furthermore, in the chapter of the Georgian law dedicated to database the legislator also defines the rights and obligations of a lawful user of database, in order to balance them with the rights of a maker of database, according to which “the maker of a database which is published or made available to the public may not prevent a lawful user of the database from extracting and/or re-utilizing insubstantial parts of its contents, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, for any purpose whatsoever”896. On the other hand, this lawful user
“may not perform acts which prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the
890 Chapter VI, Law of the Republic of Moldova on Copyright and Related Rights. 891 Hugenholtz in: Dreier/Hugenholtz Concise Copyright. p. 327.
892 Art. 54.2, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 893 Art. 7.1, Directive 96/9/EC.
894 Art. 54.1, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 895 Art. 7.2, Directive 96/9/EC.
163
database”,897 as well as “may not infringe rights of owner of copyright and related rights
contained in the database”898. As we see, here the rights of a lawful user are balanced with
the rights of the maker of database, as well as with the rights of owner of copyright and related rights. Such balanced approach is provided in the Directive itself and the regulation provided in the Georgian law is identical with this provision of the Directive899. The
limitations to the rights of the database maker, which are in fact the rights of a lawful user to extract and/or re-utilize the database contents/parts for private or scientific (non- commercial) purposes as well as for the purposes of public security or court procedure900, are
defined in Georgian law also similarly to the Directive901.
The provision about the deposit of a database has been added to the Georgian law by the fourth amendment in 2005, according to which the database maker may deposit the original or a copy of a database with Georgian National Intellectual Property Center “Sakpatenti”.902
Besides this novelty, the fourth amendment has been important in terms of protecting the databases since it has strengthened the two-tier protection regime for the databases while separating two types of database from each other: a database which is a copyrighted personal intellectual creation as a result of selection and systematization (referred as the first type) and a database which is not a ‘work’ in the sense of personal intellectual creation, but the rights of its maker still has to be protected.903
Besides the definitions of terms and the separated chapter VII especially dedicated to the rights of database makers, the other parts of Georgian law also reflect the provisions provided by the Directive which regulate the copyrighted database (and not the sui generis right).
897 Art. 55.2, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 898 Art. 55.3, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 899 Art. 8, Directive 96/9/EC.
900 Art. 56, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 901 Art. 9, Directive 96/9/EC.
902 Art. 54¹.1, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights.
903 Part V, Explanatory Note of changes and amendments to the Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring
164
While regulating the economic rights in databases (as well as in computer programs) Georgian law grants the author of database an exclusive right to exercise, authorize, or prohibit temporary or permanent reproduction, translation, adaptation, arrangement, and any other alteration of the database and reproduction, distribution, communication to the public, as well as display or performance to the public,904 as it is provided in the Directive905,
only the territory of the community is replaced by the territory of Georgia. Furthermore, the law sets limitations to the rights of an owner of database together with the rights of an owner of computer programs,906 as it is regulated in the “Database Directive”907 and the “Computer
Programs Directive”908: here the provisions of the Database and Computer Program
Directives are unified in one article. Besides that, Georgian law enables the free use of database909, where it uses the analogy of its previous article concerning the decompilation of
the computer programs910.
In this regard Georgian legislator has used an interesting technique of unifying the provisions of “Computer Programs Directive” and “Database Directive” into the single Articles – 19 and 28. In Article 19 of the Georgian law the first part reflects the provisions of the “Computer Programs Directive”911 while the second part repeats the norms of the “Database
Directive”912. Although this article has been criticized for “not creating any legally important
and new norm to the law”913, it still should be considered that this provision unifies the
important provisions of the two EU Directives. Article 28 of the Georgian law also reflects the norms of Computer Programs914 and Database915 Directives but, unlikely to the Article 19
904 Art. 19.2, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 905 Art. 5, Directive 96/9/EC.
906 Art. 28, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 907 Art. 6, Directive 96/9/EC.
908 Art. 5, Directive 2009/24/EC.
909 Art. 30, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 910 Art. 29, Georgian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. 911 Art. 4 Directive 91/250/EEC.
912 Art. 5 Directive 96/6/EC. 913 Dzamukashvili, p. 132. 914 Art. 5 Directive 91/250/EEC.
165
where the provisions are divided into first and second parts, this article provides more consolidated version of the norms, where the limitations of rights for computer program owner and database owner are unified. Such ‘combined’ technique demonstrates an interesting approach of the Georgian legislator in terms of legal methodology.