> what’s the difference in reading a printed sign on the street
and a shops website stating the opening hours for our purpose?
For me, "a printed sign on the street" is on-the-ground information,
and "a shops website" is not on-the-ground information.
muramoto
> I am quite ignorant about the EU directive and it is beyond my ability to
> understand what is stated in it.
The problem is, I don’t have the slightest idea how this all plays out
in Japan. The only thing I would imagine is that there are some
similiar protection laws because Japan signed the
5 Jul 2019, 16:21 by yumean1...@gmail.com:
> Both of you are saying that factual data such as opening_hours, phone numbers
> or addresses require no investiment
> and thus they are not protected by the database rights. Am I right?
>
it seems to me that (I am no a lawyer etc) that it depends:
Thank you, Mateusz and Tom.
I am quite ignorant about the EU directive and it is beyond my ability to
understand what is stated in it.
However, there is one thing I could barely find in your messages.
Both of you are saying that factual data such as opening_hours, phone
numbers or addresses
> because it would be unfair if websites of small business are allowed
> and those of large comanies are not.
I don’t seem to be able to follow the problem here, hope you can help
me: how can a collection of opening hours be a protectable database
under directive 96/9/EG (speaking for the EU)?
>
5 Jul 2019, 11:39 by yumean1...@gmail.com:
> because it would be unfair if websites of small business are allowed and
> those of large comanies are not.
>
I am guessing that it is also OK for large companies - but this is based on
common sense
that often fails for copyright.
Though I
Thank you for the responce.
To Joseph:
> Survey would still be needed, because website information can be wrong
> or out-of-date. Even if website data is allowed, in-person survey is
> the "gold standard", best practice.
I totally agree. Mapping without survey is regarded as an "import" and
5 Jul 2019, 05:22 by yumean1...@gmail.com:
> The main point at issue is whether we are allowed to use official websites
> that provide primary information or not.
> Some of us think that we can use data from official websites unless it is
> prohibited by their term of service.
>
I am not a
The previous mail was cross-posted on talk, talk-ja and legal-talk.
However, I was given an advice to avoid cross-posting and aggregate the
discussion on legal-talk.
Please remove talk and talk-ja from the mail adress when you post your
opinion. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience.
Thank you!
