Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > It has been argued that *individual* pieces of geographical information (and > other factual data) are not copyrightable, while the whole set is indeed > copyrightable. That's what the EU database directive and the ODbL are all > about.
I have today (attending a workshop about legal aspects of geodata) learned that there are indeed three different aspects: 1. Copyright. - Never applies to an idea, only ever applies to the concrete expression of the idea. Certain amount of creativity must be involved. - You can reverse engineer Geodata from a printed map without violating copyright but you cannot copy the map design. Copyright can only be held by a natural person and, at least in Germany, exists automatically whenever you create something. There's a catalog of things for which copyright applies. For example it does apply to satellite images even though there is no creative act involved. 2. Copyright for databases. This is a sub-form of copyright that can protect a database even if the individual data items are not protected. It requires (a) a database and (b) a non-trivial "creative act" to set it up (e.g. well-designed data model etc). This can also only be held by a natural person and is just the same as normal copyright. (Note, it does not protect the contents of the data base.) 3. Database directive. This applies to databases even where the content is not protected, and, contrary to copyright, does NOT require the "creative act". Instead, it requires an non-trivial "investment" (in collecting, arranging, presenting the data). Also contrary to copyright, this protection does NOT apply to the creator, but to the person (natural or incorporated) that actually does the investment. Copyright protection ends 70 years after the death of the author, while the database directive protection ends 15 years after the work has been created (but the 15 years are refreshed whenever additional non-trivial investment is performed to keep data up to date). I am, meanwhile, absolutely sure that the data in our data base is not copyrighted and that the license we currently have is, since it is built on copyright, not applicable. But when asked by third parties about OSM I tend to act as if CC-BY-SA was alive and working because that's what we (the project) have (involuntarily) led our contributors to believe. I would be very interested in hearing from the proponents of the new license (a) since the license allows - must allow, according to the database directive - the free extraction of non-substantial amounts of data, do you have any idea about what you might want to call substantial? The lawyer I have listened to today said that it was mainly a question of comparative amount, i.e. there will be some percentage that you can extract with impunity. Any idea about that percentage, or promill-age or whatever? (b) what exactly is the plan for dealing with jurisdictions that don't have a database directive? Just to outline this point for new readers - in a world with database directive, the "default" allowed use of a database that contains individual non-protected data objects is "no permission". This means you have to get permission, and in doing so you can enter any number of licenses/contracts. In countries without database directive, the "default" allowed use of a database that contains individual non-protected data objects is "you can do anything you want with it", which means that you are not forced to even *read* any license document that comes with it, much less abide by its terms. These are two big issues that concern the implementation of the new license and they haven't been discussed, much like the transition strategy which has been asked about in this thread. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
