Rettspraksis

HR-2019-1725-A-English: Forskjell mellom sideversjoner

← Forrige endring
FredrikL (diskusjon | bidrag)
Import, Byråkrater, emailconfirmed, Grensesnittadministratorer, Administratorer
79 437 redigeringer
mIngen redigeringsforklaring
FredrikL (diskusjon | bidrag)
Import, Byråkrater, emailconfirmed, Grensesnittadministratorer, Administratorer
79 437 redigeringer
mIngen redigeringsforklaring
 
(49 mellomliggende sideversjoner av samme bruker vises ikke)
Linje 1: Linje 1:
{{Høyesterett
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; background-color:#fff; border-style:1px solid #e1e1e1;"
|Instans=Supreme Court - Order
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Instance:
|Dato=2019-09-11
| Supreme Court - Order
|Publisert=HR-2019-1725-A (translated by the Supreme Court to English)
|-
|Stikkord=Intellectual property, Copyright, Database protection, Preliminary injunction, Primary claim, Secure claim, Freedom of expression, Freedom of information, Legal costs
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Date:
|Sammendrag=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.
| 2019-09-11
|-
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Published:
| [[HR-2019-1725-A]] (translated into English by the Supreme Court)
|-
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Keywords:
| Intellectual property, Copyright, Database protection, Preliminary injunction, Primary claim, Secure claim, Freedom of expression, Freedom of information, Legal costs
|-
! 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 issue at stake was whether the freedom of expression entails restrictions on the protection of databases under the Copyright Act.


The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in the County Court. Thus, a dispute remained over the Supreme Court decisions for the period 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.
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 Supreme Court concluded that extraction and making available on the internet the material in question was in violation of Lovdata's exclusive right under section 24 of the Copyright Act as far as the Supreme Court rulings were exported from a DVD published by Lovdata in 2005 or Lovdata's online databases. It was agreed that material retrieved from a CD released by Lovdata in 2002 could be used freely because the database 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 Copyright Act is based on international sources of law and reflects the legislature's deliberate weighing of the rights holders' legitimate rights on the one hand and freedom of expression on the other. The issue of freedom of expression in this case could not overrule the clear provisions of the law.
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.
 
The decision guidance for the weighing between the database right under the Copyright Act and freedom of expression. The decison further 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.


Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:
Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:
* [[Rettspraksis-saken|The Rettspraksis-case]]
* [[Rettspraksis-saken|The Rettspraksis-case]]
* [[Medieomtale_og_sosiale_medier|Media coverage]]
* [[Medieomtale_og_sosiale_medier|Media coverage]]
|Saksgang=Oslo County Court [[TOBYF-2018-83936]], [[TOBYF-2018-88856]] - Court of Appeal [[LB-2018-162009]] - Supreme Court HR-2019-1725-A, (case no. 19-22475SIV-HRET), Appeal against Borgarting Court of Appeal’s order 13 December 2018
|-
|Parter=Appealing parties: Fredrik Ljone og Håkon Wium Lie (counsel Halvor Manshaus) against The Lovdata Foundation (counsel Jon Wessel-Aas)
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Case processing:
|Forfatter=Thyness, Indreberg, Bull, Ringnes, Arntzen
| Oslo County Court [[TOBYF-2018-83936]], [[TOBYF-2018-88856]] - Borgarting Court of Appeal [[LB-2018-162009]] - Supreme Court HR-2019-1725-A (case no. 19-22475SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against Borgarting Court of Appeal’s order
|Lovhenvisninger=[https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§14 Copyright Act (2018) §14], [https://lovdata.no/lov/2018-06-15-40/§24 §24], [https://lovdata.no/lov/1814-05-17/§100 Constitution of Norway (1814) §100], [https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Art. 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) §15-8], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 §20-2], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section30-6 §30-6], [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section34-1 §34-1]
|-
}}
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Parties:
| Fredrik Ljone og Håkon Wium Lie (counsel Halvor Manshaus) against The Lovdata Foundation (counsel Jon Wessel-Aas)
|-
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Judges:
| [[Erik Thyness]], [[Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen]], [[Henrik Bull]], [[Arne Ringnes]], [[Hilde Indreberg]]
|-
! 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 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>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.


Linje 290: Linje 305:
(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.
Hentet fra «https://rettspraksis.no/wiki/HR-2019-1725-A-English»