Second trial (my message "Re: [geo-discuss] copyright not applicable to geodata?" has been rejected by the list moderator: "... too big for the mailing list (the list limit is 40kb)".
All, a part from DB european directive (96/9/EC) we'd better add some other EU directives<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_European_Union#Directives>+ dozen WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/> documents + hundreds National laws (EU 25 members) on copyright and related rights. You can download a couple of docs here<http://www.freegis-italia.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=28&Itemid=65>, I do hope they can be useful: 1. List of International and EU normatives on copyright and IP (kindly provided to CEN/TC287 WG5 by dr. M.Travostino <http://www.creativecommons.it/about>, an italian lawyer and IP expert, also working on geodata issues - reading in cc) 2. National laws ist (from WIPO database<http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/clea_tree1.jsp> ) Jo:
Local and regional authorities in Italy and in New Zealand among others,
have been looking into whether it is appropriate to use a Creative Commons license for geodata. Are you really sure about that? I do know local and regional authorities in Italy quite well: just few examples are seriously doing this (say 3 or 4 out of 20 Regions + 103 Provinces + 8000 Municipalities). So, please, do not generalize: unfortunately it's not a national-wide phenomenon. Direct link to docs: 1. http://www.freegis-italia.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=27&Itemid=65 2. http://www.freegis-italia.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=28&Itemid=65 pg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Piergiorgio Cipriano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Apr 2, 2007 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [geo-discuss] copyright not applicable to geodata? To: Rufus Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] On 4/2/07, Rufus Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Rufus Pollock wrote: > >> Thus the simple message to the openstreetmap and other list should be: >> stop worrying and keep licensing. > > Mmm, but I'm not convinced there's nothing for us to worry about. > > OSM is licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0, which expressly defines the "Work" as > "the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this > License" (1e). Now it looks like OSM, and other geodata, may not be > copyrightable - it's database-rightable (sorry, that's not a word). At > this point the applicability of the licence starts to look a little > shaky, because we aren't using CC-Netherlands/Belgium. In the EU at least there is both copyright and the sui-generis right though with some restrictions on when you can use the copyright (old common-law jurisdictions and many others allowed copyright in simple data no matter how 'unoriginal'). Specifically here is the quote from Cornish and Llewelyn, *Intellectual Property* 5th Edition (one of the standard treatises) paras 19-37 and following: (i) Copyright in the Compilation. ... First, it [the DB directive] defines what is meant by a "database": "a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged ina systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means." [DB Dir Art 3] Then it allows copyright in a database (as distinct from its contents), but only on the basis of authorship involving involving personal intellectual creativity. This is a new limitation, so far as common law countries are concerned, and one which must presage a raising of the standard or originality throughout British Copyright law. Intellectual judgment which is in some sense the author's own must go either into choosing contents or into the method of arrangement. The selective dictionary will doubtless be a clearer case than the classificatory telephone directory but each may have some hope; the merely comprehensive will be precluded -- that is the silliness of the whole construct. ... (ii) Database right. In addition there is a separate sui generis right given to the maker of a database (the investing initiator) against extraction or reutilisation of the database. Four essential points may be highlighted: (1) The right applies to databases whether or not their arrangement justifies copyright and whatever position may be regarding copyright in individual items in its contents. ... > I do agree with your point on the SPARC-OpenData list about the "social > contract", but unfortunately if someone exploits it _despite_ that, the > result is either big fat legal fees or an unenforced licence. I agree, and the social contract point was a secondary one. > We (OSM) are asking lawyers about this. That is great to hear and let me know what the result is. Even if the current CC license is insufficient it should only be a small mod to make it sufficient. On this point, I don't know whether you recall but two years after the original open geodata forum Giles Lane instigated work on modifying the CC licenses specicifically for use with geodata: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/geo-discuss/2005-April/000012.html The effort rather ran out of steam due to a perceived lack of immediate need for it. Details, plus link to last version of the license are on: http://www.okfn.org/geo/access.html#license . ~rufus _______________________________________________ geo-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
-- Piergiorgio Cipriano [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Piergiorgio Cipriano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ geo-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
