https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sui-generis-database-rights-after-the-transition-period
is the UKs governments guidance on this. On re-reading I agree that the
withdrawal agreement itself is rather ambiguous, and there is a lot of
conflicting advice on the matter, see for example
My understanding is that 58.2 covers the rights of UK based entities, with
other words it extends the directives article 11 to cover UK residents and
entities.
Am 14. Dezember 2020 00:11:25 MEZ schrieb Tom Hummel via legal-talk
:
>Simon,
>
>sorry for reopening.
>
>> This was the subject of the
Simon,
sorry for reopening.
> This was the subject of the original message in this thread. The
> situation post December 31st 2020 is such that protection for sui
> generis databases will remain for database published before that date in
> the UK till the protection term runs out. In the case
Am 13.12.2020 um 22:43 schrieb Edward Bainton:
Ok, so let me rephrase about 'moving the database'.
I mean moving the domicile of OSMF, as legal owner of the database.
This is being discussed. (See LWG minutes for September)
Does anyone have a clear idea what that would do for the protection
Ok, so let me rephrase about 'moving the database'.
I mean moving the domicile of OSMF, as legal owner of the database. This is
being discussed. (See LWG minutes for September)
Does anyone have a clear idea what that would do for the protection of the
database as it currently stands? Would it be
Am 13.12.2020 um 20:12 schrieb Tom Hummel via legal-talk:
Hi all,
Am Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2020, 15:58:48 CET schrieb Simon Poole:
The relevant bit of the directive is in article 11. As you can see the
rights are dependent on being domiciled in the EU, not on the physical
location of the
Hi all,
Am Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2020, 15:58:48 CET schrieb Simon Poole:
> The relevant bit of the directive is in article 11. As you can see the
> rights are dependent on being domiciled in the EU, not on the physical
> location of the "database". I would need to check up on the UK
Do the
The relevant bit of the directive is in article 11. As you can see the
rights are dependent on being domiciled in the EU, not on the physical
location of the "database". I would need to check up on the UK
equivalent, but it likely requires the same. Outside of the UK and EU
(possibly including
The primary database and one of the mirrors are already
in the EU and have been for several years.
There are currently two other mirrors both of which
are in the UK.
Tom
On 13/12/2020 09:21, Edward Bainton wrote:
Thank you for the link, now read. All you say on substantial changes
makes
Thank you for the link, now read. All you say on substantial changes makes
sense.
So if we move the database into the EU, are we confident it would be all be
protected under those terms? Does the hiatus from 1 Jan 2021 cause any
difficulties? I'm reading the bit that says protection runs from the
*sigh
No, it's not remotely clear!
Thank you.
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, 23:02 Simon Poole, wrote:
> Legal talk is not the LWG list if that isn't clear, that is
> le...@osmfoundation.org
>
> Simon
> Am 10.12.2020 um 22:11 schrieb Edward Bainton:
>
> A pleasure meeting you all at LWG this evening.
To answer the questions caveat there is no relevant court decisions that
I know of, so this is all likely untested: insubstantial changes to a
database do not create a new one, but substantial changes do. Where the
line is drawn, or better where the OSMF draws the line, is currently
open. See
Legal talk is not the LWG list if that isn't clear, that is
le...@osmfoundation.org
Simon
Am 10.12.2020 um 22:11 schrieb Edward Bainton:
A pleasure meeting you all at LWG this evening.
I saw Brexit in the minutes for September
"At the end of year we won't be losing database rights
13 matches
Mail list logo
