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

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 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)].

@@ 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 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)].