<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>The way it is formulated isn't quite correct*, but the underlying
issue does exist.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.11.2020 um 17:25 schrieb Michael
Collinson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a8739666-0af5-d4de-6c8c-7f31a88d909b@ayeltd.biz">...<br>
I have one due diligence issue. Can anyone confirm the legal
situation in this question? Just checking:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM20/Election_to_Board#Should_we_do_anything_about_EU_database_rights.3F">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM20/Election_to_Board#Should_we_do_anything_about_EU_database_rights.3F</a>
<br>
...<br>
</blockquote>
<p>* existing databases that where originally published in the EU
remain protected until the protection runs out, that is after 15
years. -inside- the EU that period restarts when, article 10: <br>
</p>
<p><i>"</i><i>3. Any substantial change, evaluated qualitatively
or quantitatively, to the contents of a database, including any
substantial change resulting from the accumulation of successive
additions, deletions or alterations, which would result in the
database being considered to be a substantial new investment,
evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, shall qualify the
database resulting from that investment for its own term of
protection."</i></p>
<p>Such an extension event would require us to be publishing in the
EU, but extrapolating from that, that current new additions to the
database are unprotected is likely wrong (there is no relevant
case law afaik).<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>