Breaking
Opinion 4 min

Betting on a bundle of rights – how the law protects data

Data is the oil of the digital economy – whether it's personal data or other sorts of data.

data
Share𝕏inf

Following the advent of the General Data Protection Regulation in May last year, people are far more aware of their data protection and privacy rights.

As a result, businesses are rightfully taking data protection far more seriously.

The growth of the Internet of Things – connected cars, home devices and sensors, for example – will only drive up data generation and new 5G mobile networks will help facilitate this.

Free newsletters

The stories that matter to UK business, straight to your inbox.

The protection of personal data is increasingly well understood and applied. However, vast amounts of data now being generated isn’t personal. One of the things lawyers are debating more frequently is whether data (whether personal or non-personal) can be “owned” – is it a form of property?

This question has enormous economic importance and is a separate issue from data protection law, which is rooted in protecting certain fundamental human rights concerning data rather than property rights.

All businesses will be generating and processing data.  This data will have considerable value – it may give your business a competitive edge or be a vital business asset. So how do you protect it?

In English law, the legal protection of data is fragmentary and complex. First, it’s generally understood there is no such thing as “property” in information. So, for example, an electronic database of information cannot be said to be property in the way that the IT server on which it sits is property.

The law says that you need to distinguish between the information/data itself (in which there is no right of property), the physical medium where it is recorded (which is tangible property – it can be exclusively “owned” and “possessed”) and the intangible intellectual property rights (copyright, database right and rights in confidential information) that may nevertheless still protect the information.

The EU has been thinking about a new legal right that would protect data – a “data producer’s right” – but such a right is a long way off. Because of the uncertainty surrounding how the law protects data, contracts are often used to deal with the matter even though the legal basis for the protection of the data may be unclear.

Every so often, the courts will explore how data is protected. One recent case decided in May this year concerned rights to horse racing data. Here the data owners tried to rely on a bundle of legal rights they claimed in their data, including:

At trial, the claimants or data “owners” failed in all their claims apart from in relation to breach of confidence. Here the court held the pre-race data was commercially valuable, and as the claimants had sought to prevent its distribution off-course they were entitled to protect it – even though the information was potentially publicly available.

What is also interesting is that the court rejected any argument that the relevant data was protected by copyright, deeming it was not “original” enough as an algorithm generated it by “pure routine work”.

They found that compiling the data didn’t involve sufficient skill, labour and judgment to merit copyright protection. As for database right, the use made of the data did not amount to database right infringement.

The case illustrates the challenges that can arise in protecting data. The data “owners” here had to make several arguments only one of which – breach of confidence – succeeded at trial.

However, the case isn’t the last word on the subject – as always cases are fact-dependent, and businesses need to have policies and procedures in place to protect their data.

Obvious areas to focus on are:

Photo by Glenn Carstens-Peters on Unsplash

Simon Stokes
About the author

Simon Stokes

Simon Stokes is a Partner with law firm Blake Morgan . He leads the firm's technology practice in London and specialises in information technology law.

More from Opinion.

More →