On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote: >> >> What is "the German equivalent >> of a 'derived work'"? And, if you're saying it's different, then how >> can you say it's equivalent? > > Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions "adaptation" rather than > "derived work". Your referring to "derived work" is therefore the use of an > equivalent concept in your own legal system.
You mean the US legal system? The US code uses the term "derivative work" (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103), as does much of the case law. >> It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are >> protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the >> United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same >> as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial >> photograph is a derivative work. > > If there isn't a copyright in the original, work that copies from it cannot > infringe that copyright because it doesn't exist. Sure, but the reverse is not true. There can be copyright in the original, yet a work that copies (non-copyright parts) from it do not infringe that copyright. That is probably the situation with OSM-style "tracing" of aerial photographs. > If there is a copyright then producing a recognisable copy of some part of > it will, modulo fair dealing (or fair use, which is its equivalent concept) > it will infringe on that copyright. I'm not sure if we disagree on substance, or if it's just a terminology thing. How would you reconcile that statement with Bauman v Fussell? There was copyright in the original. A recognisable copy of some part of the original was made. Would you call it a case of fair dealing? > Now if you're talking about tracing ways from photos I would agree, > philosophically, that it is a leap to regard those as derivatives. Yes, that is what I was talking about. Isn't that what this thread is about? > But if it's a leap the courts have made or that companies with more lawyers > than > OSM've got have made then that's what we have to deal with. Is it a leap the courts have made? If it's just something being claimed by "companies with more lawyers than OSM've got", then how should we deal with it? >> If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work >> (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of >> the image, which is probably not Microsoft. > > You need a licence from someone with sufficient rights to grant you that > licence. Which in this case is Microsoft. What makes you think Microsoft has sufficient rights to grant that license? _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk