Jurisdiction Profiles

The United States has no overarching statute or sui generis right for database protection. Instead, data and databases are protected through a patchwork of federal and state intellectual property laws, contract law, and consumer privacy statutes. At the federal level, databases are protected primarily as trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and as compilations under the Copyright Act, while most states protect trade secrets under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Consumer privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act increasingly shape how personal data may be used and commercialized.

Canada has no overarching or sui generis database law; protection flows from copyright, common law trade secret principles, contracts, and privacy legislation, with the provinces playing a significant role. Under the Copyright Act, databases may be protected as compilations, but only the selection or arrangement of data is covered, and the Supreme Court in CCH Canadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada requires the exercise of 'skill and judgment' — mechanical or near-instantaneous compilation does not qualify, and purely AI-generated works are not protectable.

Brazil protects data as an asset through a combination of copyright, trade secret provisions in its industrial property law, contract law, and the LGPD, its comprehensive data protection statute. Article 7(XIII) of the Copyright Law recognizes databases as intellectual creations where they show originality in selection or arrangement resulting from a human creative process; raw data and mere compilation effort remain unprotected, as Brazilian law rejects the 'sweat of the brow' doctrine and does not extend copyright to works generated solely by AI.

Mexico protects databases through a robust combination of copyright, trade secret doctrine, contracts, and privacy regulation, without a formal sui generis database law. The Federal Copyright Law (LFDA, by its Spanish acronym) protects original compilations under Article 107 and grants database owners reproduction, adaptation, and distribution rights under Article 110. Distinctively, Article 108 protects non-original databases against unfair competition — a quasi-sui generis remedy covering investment-heavy compilations such as customer lists, price indices, or technical manuals that fail the originality threshold, though it remains underutilized in litigation.

The European Union offers one of the world's most comprehensive frameworks for protecting data as an asset, layering copyright, a sui generis database right, harmonized trade secret protection, contract law, and extensive data regulation. The Database Directive (96/9/EC) grants copyright to databases whose selection or arrangement is the author's own intellectual creation and — the most extensive such regime among surveyed jurisdictions — a sui generis right protecting substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting data, which can be transferred or licensed for a period of 15 years.

The United Kingdom protects data through a structured framework of copyright, retained sui generis database rights, trade secrets, contract, and data protection law, but Brexit has introduced significant divergence from the EU. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 protects original databases as literary works and — distinctively — recognizes computer-generated works under Section 9(3), deeming the author to be the person who made the arrangements necessary for creation, a provision that may extend limited protection to AI-generated datasets where human oversight can be demonstrated.

Australia does not formally recognize data as a distinct intellectual property asset; protection instead comes from an overlapping combination of copyright, equitable confidentiality, contract law, and privacy regulation. Copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) has become of limited practical value for corporate data assets: after IceTV v. Nine Network and Telstra v. Phone Directories, protection requires original expression by a discernible human author applying creative judgment, which excludes the automated, machine-collected datasets that dominate modern data practice.

China treats data as a strategic asset within its digital economy and protects it through a layered regime of copyright, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL), contract provisions of the Civil Code, and an expanding body of data security and personal information law. Under Article 15 of the Copyright Law, databases showing originality in selection or arrangement may be protected as collective works — as in Shanghai Hantao v. Aibang Juxin, involving Dianping.com's restaurant reviews — though stringent evidentiary standards make copyright actions relatively uncommon in practice.

India protects data through a blend of copyright, contract, equity, and evolving privacy regulation, without a sui generis database right or codified trade secrets statute. The Copyright Act, 1957 defines tables, compilations, and computer databases as 'literary works' under Section 2(o), and in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak the Supreme Court rejected 'sweat of the brow' in favor of a 'skill and judgment' test. Courts have protected customer lists as original compilations, as in Burlington Home Shopping v. Rajnish Chibber, but raw data itself remains outside copyright.

Kenya protects data through a layered framework of statute, constitution, contract, and English-derived common law, without recognizing data as a standalone intellectual property category. The Copyright Act, 2001, enacted to align Kenya with TRIPS, protects compilations and databases as literary works where they show originality in selection or arrangement, and Section 35 makes infringement actionable with damages, injunctions and accounts. In Webtribe v. Jambopay Express (2017), the court protected a copied payment platform through trademark, breach of confidence (arising in equity — no NDA existed) and passing off; the judgment itself rested on confidence and trademark grounds rather than copyright.

Nigeria's legal framework offers only partial and indirect protection for data as an IP asset. The Copyright Act 2022, the country's modernized copyright statute, protects compilations of data — including data stored in a computer or any medium — as literary works where they show creativity or originality in selection or arrangement. However, Section 2(5) makes clear that copyright in a compilation confers no rights over the raw data it contains, and Section 3(a) expressly excludes 'mere data,' ideas, procedures, and processes from protection.