On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Matt Amos wrote: >>> And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights >>> over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by >>> invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the >>> contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in >>> Europe, also terminates after 15 years? >> >> you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection. >> that's why we need a contract, because there are no "sui generis" >> rights to take advantage of. > > I don't think I understand you, or maybe you don't understand me. I'll > try this in individual steps: <snip> > Clearer now?
i understood that part of your point the first time around, but i was correcting your claim that the ODbL "tries ... to assert rights over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none". i was pointing out that ODbL doesn't (and, as you say, can't) claim any *rights*, so it has to try to emulate them using contract law instead. maybe this is why lawyers use capitalised terms, like Rights, with a defined meaning :-) but i take your point about the variable length of the protection in different jurisdictions. maybe it's cold comfort that any copyright-based license has exactly the same problem. i can't find anywhere in the GPL, for example, which states the length of the term and countries have wildly varying copyright terms according to [1] (from life+100 years in mexico down to life+25 in the seychelles or even 0 in the marshall islands, where copyright law doesn't exist) >> yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed. > > Aren't you now mixing database law and copyright terms. Whether or not > something falls under copyright has nothing to with whether it is > substantial related to some kind of database, has it? well, in some jurisdictions there might be copyright over the data arrangement, but - you're right - that's not what i meant. i should have said "database rights". > For example if OSM user "n80" artfully crafts a way that doesn't even > exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps be protected by > copyright in some jurisdictions, completely independent of the database > and whether or not it is substantial. > > If I read the contributor agreement correctly, then we require from > "n80" that he declares never to exercise his copyright. Whether or not, > and for how long, database protection covers his work of art, does not > come into the equation - the copyright question is over when the data is > uploaded. Correct? the contributor terms covers the copyright in individual elements, granting a "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other". so, yes; individual data items come with a very liberal license. this doesn't mean that certain aspects of copyright don't still exist (e.g: in some jurisdictions an author's moral rights are non-waivable), but then we can start arguing over whether any copyright is valid over factual data, etc... etc... cheers, matt [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk