On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it.
Then show why I'm wrong, don't say that I may be right in some jurisdictions and you aren't sure if I'm right in others. > For example in Germany simple "Lichtbilder" (which would include areial > photographs) have the same protection as photographic works of art > ("Lichtbildwerke") with the exception of the proctection term. And there is > at least one German higher court judgement in which tracing a non-artistic > photograph was considered copyright infringement None of that even shows that German courts use the term "derivative work", let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the definition of that term. And the license being provided by Microsoft isn't even governed under the laws of Germany anyway. If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see that it said that the Microsoft license "makes no grants of rights to publish derived works". It didn't say anything about Lichtbilder laws in Germany. > PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right > now is going on in -Germany- And that matters why, exactly? Why would Microsoft issue a license, governed under the laws of the US, giving people permission to do something which is not restricted under US law, and is not something which Microsoft owns the rights to anyway? _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk