<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 were 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>