Thank you both. To clarify, this is in the UK, where I am in discussion with two organisations.
>From a purely legal perspective, can I simply plough on trying to invest them in the usefulness of OSM on the basis that, if any employer became unhappy, their remedy is against their employee for signing the Contributor Agreement without authorisation - and not against OSM, which can keep the data? In other words, if later becomes a problem, it's not OSM's problem. Obviously, good practice may dictate a less "not my problem" approach, but I'm trying to find the worst-case scenario before going further. On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 00:06, Kathleen Lu <kathleen...@mapbox.com> wrote: > Jurisdiction dependant, but here are two general concepts which I think > are relevant: > > As the statute you quoted specifies, when copyright will belong to the > employer, it tends to depend on if the copyrightable work was made within > the scope of the employee's job. (If you're a software programmer, it would > be difficult for your employer to claim ownership a romance novel you > write, but easier to claim ownership of code you write.) > > When an employee signs a contract, whether that contract is binding on the > employer depends on whether the employee had authorization to sign on > behalf of the employer, and sometimes whether it *seems* like to a > reasonably objective person dealing with the employee whether the employee > had authorization. > > These two principles would be in tension with each other in the case of an > employer who claimed, on the one hand, that their employee's job was to > edit OSM, but on the other hand, the employee did not have authorization to > sign the Contributor Agreement, which would have been required for them to > do their job. > > Thus, while it would be easy for an employer to claim ownership of such > edits, I think it would be difficult for that same employer to also claim > the Contributor Agreement does not apply. > > -Kathleen > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:04 PM Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > >> The question is rather complicated and if at all can really only be >> approached on a per jurisdiction base as both employment regulation and >> certain aspects of intellectual property law differ widely by territory. >> >> So the 1st thing to clarify would be where this is taking place and which >> law is relevant. >> >> Simon >> >> Am 18. Oktober 2019 19:41:59 MESZ schrieb Edward Bainton < >> bainton....@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation: >>> >>> *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has the >>> work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?* >>> >>> According to UK Copyright Act 1988, >>> s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1 >>> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/11#commentary-c13754611>, >>> or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his >>> employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any >>> agreement to the contrary. >>> >>> Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is concerned, as having >>> authority to license the work? Or rather, which is what I take to be the >>> more important question, if the employer became unhappy with OSM using >>> their employee's edits, would her remedy be against OSM, or against her >>> employee? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >> >> -- >> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail >> gesendet. >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
