Dutch Secretary of Justice Teeven has issued a draft bill to remove the so-called ‘geschriftenbescherming’ from Dutch copyright legislation. This is part of the modernization process of Dutch copyright law. The goal is to have a flexible, technology-neutral and future-proof copyright in order to properly connect to modern reality. 

Dutch copyright is based on the French ‘droit d’auteur’ (in Dutch: Auteursrecht), in which the creativeness of the author is central. In order to enjoy copyright protection, a work has to possess its own original character and bear the personal touch of the author. However, ‘geschriftenbescherming’ is a form of copyright protection available for non-original writings, meaning that a level of protection is also granted for writings that do not meet the requirement of being a ‘creative performance of the author’. Examples of non-original works are catalogues, phone books or timetables. The ‘geschriftenbescherming’ is meant to protect the investments of publishers and printers, rather then the creative input of the author. 

The origin of this exception lies in the literal sense of the term copyright; the ‘geschriftenbescherming’ is meant to protect printers and publishers against unauthorized copying of their works. According to Mr. Teeven, the provisions in the Copyright Act on protection of non-original works are an anomaly, as in Dutch copyright creativeness is the central object of protection. Moreover, these works already enjoy protection through tort. Infringement of this right is covered by the tort ‘onrechtmatige daad’ (unlawful act), thus additional copyright is not necessary. 

The modernization of copyright law in the Netherlands will be done in two ways.  Firstly, modern copyright will only serve to protect creative performances. Since ‘geschriftenbescherming’ does not cover any creative performance, this will now be removed. Secondly, the Dutch government believes copyright should not inadvertently preclude the creative reuse of existing material or the innovative use of information and easy exchange thereof. The protection of non-original works is often invoked to regulate parallel import instead of merely protecting the publisher’s or printer’s investment. By removing the additional protection under copyright law, the exchange and re-use of these works may be simplified. Also this could remove a legal barrier to the use of open data. 

The scope of the ‘geschriftenbescherming’ was not always clear and had to be determined on a case-by-case basis. This has led to extensive case law on this subject and is a source of uncertainty for rights-holders and those who wanted to re-use certain (parts of) information. Thus in addition to creating room for innovation and creativity, the amendment will also provide more legal clarity.  

To read more on related topics on Future of Copyright, we would like to refer you to the articles below: 

• Copyright debate on download ban and home copying levy in the Netherlands culminates
• New copyright platform proposes measures to modernize online copyright
• The Netherlands: Reproduction levy gone wild!

Sources: Rijksoverheid.nl, Boek9.nl