To link to this article, copy this persistent link:

(Feb 28, 2013) On February 11, 2013, the Ministry of Security and Justice of the Teeven Abolishes Protection of Writings (Feb. 11, 2013), Government of the Netherlands website.)

The proposal calls for amending article 10, paragraph 1, item 1, of the Copyright Act by removing the word "all." (Internet Consultatie: Wetsvoorstel Afschaffing Geschriftenbescherming [Internet Consultation: Proposal on Abolishing Writings Protection] (for implementation from Feb. 11, 2013-Apr. 11, 2013).) The article currently states: "[f]or the purposes of this Act, literary, scientific or artistic works includes: (1) books, pamphlets, newspapers, periodicals and all other writings." (Copyright Act 1912 (Netherlands), Institute for Information Law (IViR) website (updated Dec. 15, 2005); see also Auteurswet [Copyright Act] (Sept. 23, 1912, as last amended July 12, 2012, in force on Jan. 1, 2013), OVERHEID.NL.)

The government's aim in amending the Act is to modernize copyright and "provide space for creativity and innovation," which is why, in its view, "from now on only creative performances will be protected." (Teeven Abolishes Protection of Writings, supra.) At present, non-original writings such as telephone directories, user manuals, catalogs, theatre programmes, and timetables can be protected as writings, so that literal copying of information from them is not permitted. According to the Ministry, the protection of non-original writings that do not constitute a creative performance has more to do with competition law than copyright and "is mainly used by printers, publishers or manufacturers as a weapon against profiting from investments made or to keep products outside the Dutch market." (Id.)

State Secretary for Security and Justice Fred Teveen argues, moreover, that it is unsuitable for such protection to be given under copyright, especially when civil law already offers possibilities for protecting non-original writings. In his view, factual information should "in principle be as accessible and exchangeable as possible." (Id.) Another argument for abolishing the protection is that it would make the law more transparent, by clarifying the scope of the protection scheme. (Id.)

Author: Wendy Zeldin More by this author
Topic: Intellectual property More on this topic
Jurisdiction: Netherlands More about this jurisdiction

Search Legal News
Find legal news by topic, country, keyword, date, or author.

Global Legal Monitor RSS
Get the Global Legal Monitor delivered to your inbox. Sign up for RSS service.

The Global Legal Monitor is an online publication from the Law Library of Congress covering legal news and developments worldwide. It is updated frequently and draws on information from the Global Legal Information Network, official national legal publications, and reliable press sources. You can find previous news by searching the GLM.

Last updated: 02/28/2013