HR-2019-1725-A-English - Sideversjonshistorikk

FredrikL på 26. feb. 2020 kl. 17:18

2020-02-26T17:18:48Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 26. feb. 2020 kl. 19:18
Linje 19:		Linje 19:
	The Supreme Court concluded that extraction and making available on the internet the material in question was contrary to Lovdata's exclusive right under Section 24 of the Copyright Act as far as decisions were retrieved from a DVD published by Lovdata in 2005 and Lovdata's online databases. It was agreed that material retrieved from a CD released by Lovdata in 2002 could be used freely, because the protection period of 15 years had expired.		The Supreme Court concluded that extraction and making available on the internet the material in question was contrary to Lovdata's exclusive right under Section 24 of the Copyright Act as far as decisions were retrieved from a DVD published by Lovdata in 2005 and Lovdata's online databases. It was agreed that material retrieved from a CD released by Lovdata in 2002 could be used freely, because the protection period of 15 years had expired.

	The order provides guidance for the balance between the database ~~right~~ under the Copyright Act and freedom of ~~speech~~. The order further provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, ~~which~~ applies to ~~works and other rights without protection under~~ the Act.		The order provides guidance for the balance between the database rights under the Copyright Act and freedom of expression. The order further provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, that applies to public documents as part of the exercise of public authority, which are not protected by the Copyright Act.

	Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:		Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:

FredrikL på 26. feb. 2020 kl. 15:26

2020-02-26T15:26:50Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 26. feb. 2020 kl. 17:26
Linje 37:		Linje 37:
	\| [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§14 Copyright Act (2018) Section 14], [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§24 Section 24], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100], [https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10], [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EUs directive on the legal protection of databases 1996/9/EF], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section15-8 Dispute Act (2005) Section 15-8], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Section 20-2], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section30-6 Section 30-6], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section34-1 Section 34-1]		\| [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§14 Copyright Act (2018) Section 14], [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§24 Section 24], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100], [https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10], [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EUs directive on the legal protection of databases 1996/9/EF], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section15-8 Dispute Act (2005) Section 15-8], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Section 20-2], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section30-6 Section 30-6], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section34-1 Section 34-1]
	\|}		\|}
	(1) Justice <b>~~[[Erik~~ Thyness~~\|Thyness]]~~</b>: The case concerns a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases. The issue at stake is whether the freedom of expression entails restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.		(1) Justice <b>Thyness</b>: The case concerns a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases. The issue at stake is whether the freedom of expression entails restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.

	(2) <b>Background</b>		(2) <b>Background</b>
Linje 295:		Linje 295:
	2. Fredrik Ljone and Håkon Wium Lie are jointly and severally to pay costs to Lovdata in the County Court, in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court of NOK 773 200 – sevenhundredandseventythreethousandtwohundred – within 2 – two – weeks of the service of this order.		2. Fredrik Ljone and Håkon Wium Lie are jointly and severally to pay costs to Lovdata in the County Court, in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court of NOK 773 200 – sevenhundredandseventythreethousandtwohundred – within 2 – two – weeks of the service of this order.

	(76) Justice <b>~~[[Wenche Elizabeth~~ Arntzen~~\|Arntzen]]~~</b>: I agree with Justice Thyness in all material respects and with his conclusion.		(76) Justice <b>Arntzen</b>: I agree with Justice Thyness in all material respects and with his conclusion.

	(77) Justice <b>~~[[Henrik~~ Bull~~\|Bull]]~~</b>: Likewise.		(77) Justice <b>Bull</b>: Likewise.

	(78) Justice <b>~~[[Arne~~ Ringnes~~\|Ringnes]]~~</b>: Likewise.		(78) Justice <b>Ringnes</b>: Likewise.

	(79) Justice <b>~~[[Hilde~~ Indreberg~~\|Indreberg]]~~</b>: Likewise.		(79) Justice <b>Indreberg</b>: Likewise.

	(80) Following the voting the Supreme Court gave this		(80) Following the voting the Supreme Court gave this

	<b>ORDER:</b>		<center><b>ORDER:</b></center>

	1. The appeal is dismissed.		1. The appeal is dismissed.

FredrikL på 26. feb. 2020 kl. 15:24

2020-02-26T15:24:49Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 26. feb. 2020 kl. 17:24
Linje 13:		Linje 13:
	\|-		\|-
	! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; top; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" \| Summary:		! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; top; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" \| Summary:
	\|The case concerned a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases.		\|The case concerned a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases. The issue at stake was whether the freedom of expression entails restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.

	~~The background was that a group~~ of ~~citizens startet a campaign aimed at~~ the ~~Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000~~ Supreme Court ~~decisions~~ on Rettspraksis.no~~. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the authorities puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall~~, ~~grant Lovdata~~ a ~~monopoly~~ and ~~let them have exclusive rights~~. ~~(Lovdata claims to be a "private" foundation, but is established, funded and controlled by the authorities)~~		A number of judgments and other decisions of the Supreme Court had been retrieved from Lovdata's databases and published on the website Rettspraksis.no, which presents itself as a free resource for searching and finding information in court decisions.

	The Lovdata ~~Foundation waived most~~ of the ~~original claim~~ in ~~the second round in County Court.~~ Lovdata ~~accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect~~. ~~Following this, it~~ was agreed that ~~Rettspraksis.no~~ could freely ~~use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002)~~, ~~which fell outside~~ the ~~15 year database~~ protection rule, and that decisions taken from the Supreme Courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of ~~short summaries being intellectual property, which~~ had ~~nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs~~.		The Supreme Court concluded that extraction and making available on the internet the material in question was contrary to Lovdata's exclusive right under Section 24 of the Copyright Act as far as decisions were retrieved from a DVD published by Lovdata in 2005 and Lovdata's online databases. It was agreed that material retrieved from a CD released by Lovdata in 2002 could be used freely, because the protection period of 15 years had expired.

	The ~~issue at stake was whether the freedom of expression entailed restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.~~		The order provides guidance for the balance between the database right under the Copyright Act and freedom of speech. The order further provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to works and other rights without protection under the Act.

	The Supreme Court concluded that the freedom of expression could not overrule the clear provisions of the law. As a result, extraction and making available on the internet Supreme Court rulings from a DVD released by Lovdata in 2005 and from Lovdata's online database was in violation of Lovdata's exclusive rights protected by the database protection rule under the Copyright Act Section 24. The Supreme Court also ruled that Lovdata essentially won the case and that Rettspraksis.no had to pay Lovdata's legal costs of NOK 773,200.

	~~The Supreme Court states the ruling~~ provides guidance for the ~~weighing~~ between the database ~~rights protected by Section 24 of~~ the Copyright Act and ~~the~~ freedom of ~~expression protected by Article 100 of~~ The ~~Constitution. Furthermore, it~~ provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to ~~public documents~~ and other rights without protection under the ~~Copyright Act.~~

	~~The decision means that you can update an online database once every 15th year and the entire database will still be protected by the the Copyright~~ Act ~~Section 24. That includes public information on the authority's own websites, such as Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no and others.~~

	The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, protected by the freedom of information under [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100]/[https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10]. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].

	Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:		Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:

FredrikL på 2. feb. 2020 kl. 15:05

2020-02-02T15:05:09Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 2. feb. 2020 kl. 17:05
Linje 25:		Linje 25:
	The Supreme Court states the ruling provides guidance for the weighing between the database rights protected by Section 24 of the Copyright Act and the freedom of expression protected by Article 100 of The Constitution. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to public documents and other rights without protection under the Copyright Act.		The Supreme Court states the ruling provides guidance for the weighing between the database rights protected by Section 24 of the Copyright Act and the freedom of expression protected by Article 100 of The Constitution. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to public documents and other rights without protection under the Copyright Act.

	The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still ~~have database protection under~~ the Copyright Act. That includes public information on the authority's own websites, such as Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no and others.		The decision means that you can update an online database once every 15th year and the entire database will still be protected by the the Copyright Act Section 24. That includes public information on the authority's own websites, such as Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no and others.

	The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, protected by the freedom of information under [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100]/[https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10]. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].		The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, protected by the freedom of information under [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100]/[https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10]. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].

FredrikL på 2. feb. 2020 kl. 14:43

2020-02-02T14:43:35Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 2. feb. 2020 kl. 16:43
Linje 25:		Linje 25:
	The Supreme Court states the ruling provides guidance for the weighing between the database rights protected by Section 24 of the Copyright Act and the freedom of expression protected by Article 100 of The Constitution. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to public documents and other rights without protection under the Copyright Act.		The Supreme Court states the ruling provides guidance for the weighing between the database rights protected by Section 24 of the Copyright Act and the freedom of expression protected by Article 100 of The Constitution. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to public documents and other rights without protection under the Copyright Act.

	The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes public information on the ~~authorities~~ own websites, ~~like~~ Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no ~~etc.~~.		The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes public information on the authority's own websites, such as Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no and others.

	The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, protected by the freedom of information under [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100]/[https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10]. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].		The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, protected by the freedom of information under [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100]/[https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10]. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].

FredrikL på 2. feb. 2020 kl. 14:38

2020-02-02T14:38:06Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 2. feb. 2020 kl. 16:38
Linje 25:		Linje 25:
	The Supreme Court states the ruling provides guidance for the weighing between the database rights protected by Section 24 of the Copyright Act and the freedom of expression protected by Article 100 of The Constitution. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to public documents and other rights without protection under the Copyright Act.		The Supreme Court states the ruling provides guidance for the weighing between the database rights protected by Section 24 of the Copyright Act and the freedom of expression protected by Article 100 of The Constitution. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to public documents and other rights without protection under the Copyright Act.

	The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes the ~~Norwegian governments~~ own websites (Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no etc.~~) containing public information and all other websites~~.		The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes public information on the authorities own websites, like Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no etc..

	The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, protected by the freedom of information under [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100]/[https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10]. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].		The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, protected by the freedom of information under [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100]/[https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10]. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].

FredrikL på 2. feb. 2020 kl. 14:33

2020-02-02T14:33:02Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 2. feb. 2020 kl. 16:33
Linje 15:		Linje 15:
	\|The case concerned a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases.		\|The case concerned a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases.

	The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign aimed at the Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the authorities puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation ~~that~~ is established, funded and controlled by the authorities)		The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign aimed at the Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the authorities puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata claims to be a "private" foundation, but is established, funded and controlled by the authorities)

	The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in County Court. Lovdata accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect. Following this, it was agreed that Rettspraksis.no could freely use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002), which fell outside the 15 year database protection rule, and that decisions taken from the Supreme Courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of short summaries being intellectual property, which had nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.		The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in County Court. Lovdata accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect. Following this, it was agreed that Rettspraksis.no could freely use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002), which fell outside the 15 year database protection rule, and that decisions taken from the Supreme Courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of short summaries being intellectual property, which had nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.

FredrikL på 2. feb. 2020 kl. 14:24

2020-02-02T14:24:05Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 2. feb. 2020 kl. 16:24
Linje 27:		Linje 27:
	The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes the Norwegian governments own websites (Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no etc.) containing public information and all other websites.		The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes the Norwegian governments own websites (Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no etc.) containing public information and all other websites.

	The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, cf. [https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 ~~(2)~~]~~, the freedom of information~~. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].		The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, protected by the freedom of information under [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100]/[https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10]. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].

	Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:		Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:

FredrikL på 2. feb. 2020 kl. 13:56

2020-02-02T13:56:15Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 2. feb. 2020 kl. 15:56
Linje 17:		Linje 17:
	The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign aimed at the Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the authorities puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation that is established, funded and controlled by the authorities)		The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign aimed at the Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the authorities puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation that is established, funded and controlled by the authorities)

	The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in County Court. Lovdata accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect. Following this, it was agreed that Rettspraksis.no could freely use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002), which fell outside the database ~~rights protected under the Copyright Act~~, and that decisions taken from the Supreme Courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of short summaries being intellectual property, which ~~has~~ nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.		The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in County Court. Lovdata accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect. Following this, it was agreed that Rettspraksis.no could freely use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002), which fell outside the 15 year database protection rule, and that decisions taken from the Supreme Courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of short summaries being intellectual property, which had nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.

	The issue at stake was whether the freedom of expression entailed restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.		The issue at stake was whether the freedom of expression entailed restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.

	The Supreme Court concluded that the freedom of expression could not overrule the clear provisions of the law. As a result, extraction and making available on the internet Supreme Court rulings from a DVD released by Lovdata in 2005 and from Lovdata's online database was in violation of Lovdata's exclusive rights protected by the database protection rule under ~~Section 24 of~~ the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court also ruled that Lovdata essentially won the case and that Rettspraksis.no had to pay Lovdata's legal costs of NOK 773,200.		The Supreme Court concluded that the freedom of expression could not overrule the clear provisions of the law. As a result, extraction and making available on the internet Supreme Court rulings from a DVD released by Lovdata in 2005 and from Lovdata's online database was in violation of Lovdata's exclusive rights protected by the database protection rule under the Copyright Act Section 24. The Supreme Court also ruled that Lovdata essentially won the case and that Rettspraksis.no had to pay Lovdata's legal costs of NOK 773,200.

	The Supreme Court states the ruling provides guidance for the weighing between the database rights protected by Section 24 of the Copyright Act and the freedom of expression. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to public documents and other rights without protection under the Copyright Act.		The Supreme Court states the ruling provides guidance for the weighing between the database rights protected by Section 24 of the Copyright Act and the freedom of expression protected by Article 100 of The Constitution. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which applies to public documents and other rights without protection under the Copyright Act.

	The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes the Norwegian governments own websites (Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no etc.) containing public information and all other websites.		The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes the Norwegian governments own websites (Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no etc.) containing public information and all other websites.
Linje 43:		Linje 43:
	\|-		\|-
	! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" \| Law sources:		! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" \| Law sources:
	\| [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§14 Copyright Act (2018) Section 14], [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§24 Section 24], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 Constitution ~~of Norway~~ (1814) Article 100], [https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10], [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EUs directive on the legal protection of databases 1996/9/EF], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section15-8 Dispute Act (2005) Section 15-8], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Section 20-2], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section30-6 Section 30-6], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section34-1 Section 34-1]		\| [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§14 Copyright Act (2018) Section 14], [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§24 Section 24], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/a100 The Constitution (1814) Article 100], [https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10], [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EUs directive on the legal protection of databases 1996/9/EF], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section15-8 Dispute Act (2005) Section 15-8], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Section 20-2], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section30-6 Section 30-6], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section34-1 Section 34-1]
	\|}		\|}
	(1) Justice <b>[[Erik Thyness\|Thyness]]</b>: The case concerns a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases. The issue at stake is whether the freedom of expression entails restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.		(1) Justice <b>[[Erik Thyness\|Thyness]]</b>: The case concerns a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases. The issue at stake is whether the freedom of expression entails restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.

FredrikL på 2. feb. 2020 kl. 13:43

2020-02-02T13:43:12Z

← Eldre sideversjon		Sideversjonen fra 2. feb. 2020 kl. 15:43
Linje 15:		Linje 15:
	\|The case concerned a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases.		\|The case concerned a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases.

	The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign aimed at the Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the authorities puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation established, funded and controlled by the authorities)		The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign aimed at the Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the authorities puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation that is established, funded and controlled by the authorities)

	The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in County Court. Lovdata accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect. Following this, it was agreed that Rettspraksis.no could freely use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002), which fell outside the database rights protected under the Copyright Act, and that decisions taken from the Supreme Courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of short summaries being intellectual property, which has nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.		The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in County Court. Lovdata accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect. Following this, it was agreed that Rettspraksis.no could freely use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002), which fell outside the database rights protected under the Copyright Act, and that decisions taken from the Supreme Courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of short summaries being intellectual property, which has nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.