Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)

Fecha: 10-Oct-2025

Extraction

Extraction

54.

The CJEU has said that the concept of extraction is to be given a wide definition: Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (C-304/07) [2008] E.C.R. I-7565, at [31].

55.

Extraction of the contents of a database may occur indirectly, from a source other than the database concerned and therefore does not necessarily require direct access to it, see BHB at [53].

56.

In Directmedia the CJEU gave further guidance to meaning of extraction, which I will summarise:

(1)

It refers to any unauthorised act of appropriation of the whole or part of the contents of a database ([34]).

(2)

The decisive criterion is whether there has been an act of transfer of all or part of the database from one medium to another by any means, electronic, manual or otherwise ([35]-[38] and [48]-[49]).

(3)

It is immaterial whether the transfer leads to an arrangement of the content which is different from that in the original database, or whether the content has been otherwise adapted ([39]-[41]).

(4)

Since a substantial part of the database taken may be assessed qualitatively, ‘extraction’ is not limited to the transfer of (quantitatively) all or a substantial part of the protected database ([42]-[44]).

(5)

There may be an infringing transfer of material even if the transfer is only after a critical assessment by the party carrying out the transfer ([45]).

(6)

The objective pursued by the act of transfer is immaterial to whether there has been an extraction [[46]-[47]).

(7)

Extraction does not include consultation of a database ([51]). See below with regard to the meaning of ‘consultation’ as used by the CJEU (it is not a term taken from the Directive).