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
 
(30 mellomliggende sideversjoner av samme bruker vises ikke)
Linje 7: Linje 7:
|-
|-
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Published:
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Published:
| [[HR-2019-1725-A]] (translated by the Supreme Court to English)
| [[HR-2019-1725-A]] (translated into English by the Supreme Court)
|-
|-
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Keywords:
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Keywords:
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 towards 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 State puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation founded and financed by the State)
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 database rights protected under the Copyright Act, and that decisions taken from the 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 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 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 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 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 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. They neighter decided whether Lovdata is a public 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 PSI directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. the [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:
Linje 34: Linje 26:
|-
|-
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Case processing:
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Case processing:
| 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
| 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
|-
|-
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Parties:
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Parties:
Linje 40: Linje 32:
|-
|-
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Judges:
! style="width: 120px; text-align: left; color: #666; background-color: #f8f8f8;" | Judges:
| Thyness, Indreberg, Bull, Ringnes, Arntzen
| [[Erik Thyness]], [[Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen]], [[Henrik Bull]], [[Arne Ringnes]], [[Hilde Indreberg]]
|-
|-
! 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) §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]
| [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 313: 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»