On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 21:25, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The test for copyrightability is some amount of creativity. Case law > > suggests that this can be very minimal. Rather than looking for what is > > factual and thus not copyrightable, let's look for what is. > > That's not correct across all systems of intellectual property law, > the threshold differs depending on jurisdiction and subject matter. > Francis Indeed. Let's start getting specific. The threshold in the US is very low - which incidentally is where this "you can't copyright facts" stuff originated. What's the criteria in the EU? Do you know? 80n > For example when the threshold for computer programs was harmonised in > the European Union some (most) jurisdictions had to lower the bar > whereas we (may) have raised it. The same is probably true of > copyright in databases. > > That's one of the reasons why the turn of debate this thread has taken > is particularly sterile: different systems approach these questions in > entirely different ways and from fundamentally different philosophical > starting points. > > -- > Francis Davey > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
