[reordered to place copyright matters together]
> From: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:26 AM
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes
> in France
>
> Again, you have to understand that this sport organization (FFRP) is
> publishing hiking bookguides and maps of their routes. It is their main
> income (plus some subsidies from the state). The FFRP made this
> trademark and copyright to protect them against commercial competitors
> on their market : their hiking routes.
Oh, I understand why they don't want competition. I'm sure any map publisher
would be happy with less competition.
> > we map what is marked on the ground.
>
> This point has been long discussed on our local list. What you see on
> the ground is the trail markers. One problem is that the markers are
> also copyrighted (the colours and shapes) like a logo. Of course, if you
> put the McDonalds logo on OSM maps, McDo will be happy for the free ads
> and maps are not their business. But it might be different if you put an
> OS or USGS logo on your OSM maps. Second problem is that the trail
> markers are present along the route at short intervals. Even if we map
> only the marks, it will be easy to rebuild the whole route by
> extrapolation.
The copyright of the markers isn't really relevant, we're discussing text
like "GR20" which would not be protected by copyright anywhere that I'm
aware of. Trademark yes, but not copyright. The problem with any trademark
arguments is if we're accurate, we're describing
> > If the facts on the ground are covered by copyright I cannot see how a
> > hiking network is different than a road network or a cycle network.
>
> Perhaps because a road network is in the public domaine. Here we speak
> about a copyrighted route.
What makes it in the public domain as opposed to this route? Both networks
were designed.
> > I don't see that a French court's judgment should determine what goes
> > in OSM, any more than a Chinese court. Even if the French court
> > believes they have jurisdiction, they'd have to get any judgment
> > domesticated by a British court. To accept the French judgment would
> > gut OSM because it would apply to every hiking or road network in
> > France, or for that matter, outside of France.
>
> Would you say the same if the court is in US or Canada ? Of course, we
> can build our mirror of the planet dump files and filter the compromised
> data.
*Any* court judgment would need to be domesticated to be able to be enforced
against the OSMF. We're talking about a case where if it were the same facts
elsewhere it would be legal. Should the OSMF remove all landuse=military
from Russia because mapping military facilities may not be legal there? If
it were a local case that impacted me, I'd have to consider what I map and
what I distribute in light of the case, but that's about all I can say about
a vague hypothetical case.
> But is is the policy of OSM to ignore copyrights infringements
> outside UK ?
My points were not about copyright infringements outside the UK. I was
talking about data that would not infringe copyright under UK law. The
Wikimedia Foundation uses US law for determining fair use and out of
copyright status and hosts content where it would be infringing copyright
under foreign law.
Also, I think you mean the OSMF, not OSM, as it's the OSMF that would
receive any takedown notices or lawsuits.
If these did need to be removed as copyright violations, they would need to
be redacted and I imagine the legals question would end up at the LWG,
either directly or via the DWG.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
