Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
Frederik Ramm wrote: > Arne Johannessen wrote: >> >> Note that just rendering the OSM database in PNG format doesn't >> necessarily create a Produced Work. > > We have to be careful about the definition of "database" here. > According > to the legal definition of "database" which has been quoted here often > enough, any PNG file made from OSM data would qualify as a database, > which would render the whole concept of a "Produced Work" totally > useless for OSM. Right. I, too, have been struggling for a while with the Produced Work definition. Eventually I considered section 4.4 (c) ODBL and came to reconcile myself to neglect the difference because it seems not to be relevant in most practical cases. > Thus we have agreed that we are willing to consider a PNG file to be a > Produced Work unless - and I don't find the specific wording on the > Wiki > right now but I think there was something like this - someone creates > the file specially with the purpose of transporting the database > through > it. Ah, thanks -- the community guidelines had escaped me. Hm, re-reading the Produced Work guideline I have to say my joy is less than full. :) It seems to not satisfy the 'principle of legal clarity' (?? -- "Normenklarheit"), as it shouldn't be hard to create a PNG or SVG image that is both fit and 'intended for the extraction of the original data,' without the image necessarily looking like it. It might be kind of difficult to infer the creator's state of mind from just looking at the image (or even its source, for that matter)... Of course, the advantage is the language's conciseness makes it easy to apply by those who want to reuse the database, for better or worse. > In that light, I fail to see the difference between a PNG image that > represents a list of bakeries in London (which you and Andy would say > clearly is a derived database or a substantial excerpt) and a PNG > image > with a map of London and little bread symbols where there's a bakery > (which we do not want to be a derived database nor a substantial > excerpt, Again, the distribution format you choose has no influence at all on the database right issues involved. How many bakeries are there in London? Without bothering to count, I'd say Greater London surely has a lot more than 100, while The City probably has less. (A hundred is the limit for 'not Substantial' according to the community guideline for the meaning of Substantial.) If we're talking a Significant portion here, it definitely is a Derived Database in both cases (list and PNG). If we're talking a portion being not Significant, neither the ODBL nor the EU directive restrict your rights and you are free to do whatever you like with the database excerpts anyway. > or else the whole ODbL Produced Works idea would fall over and > be useless So far I have yet to discover its actual use. Pointers are appreciated. :) I mean, I can imagine cases where the spatial data content of a derived work isn't really significant. I have a tea box in my kitchen that has a nautical chart printed on its outside, overlaid with reproduced paintings of major lighthouses. The map is just in the background, used for illustration if you like, not for spatial orientation. This is what the Produced Work thing might have meant: Cases where the database's contents appear outside the database theme's domain. Another possible example might be a CG movie flying through a virtual 3D version of London, generated exclusively from OSM. The movie clearly isn't a database, as its geospatial content elements aren't individually accessible, yet it clearly has been derived from a substantial portion of OSM. I think the ODBL would require the 3rd dimension (the altitude information not currently present in OSM) to be released share-alike in this case (under section 4.2). > - for example we could not mix our map with data licensed > under another license). Wouldn't that be more a case of a Collective Database? Cheers, Arne -- Arne Johannessen ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
Frederik Ramm schrieb: > Thus we have agreed that we are willing to consider a PNG file to be a > Produced Work unless - and I don't find the specific wording on the Wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
Hi, Arne Johannessen wrote: > Note that just rendering the OSM database in PNG format doesn't > necessarily create a Produced Work. We have to be careful about the definition of "database" here. According to the legal definition of "database" which has been quoted here often enough, any PNG file made from OSM data would qualify as a database, which would render the whole concept of a "Produced Work" totally useless for OSM. Thus we have agreed that we are willing to consider a PNG file to be a Produced Work unless - and I don't find the specific wording on the Wiki right now but I think there was something like this - someone creates the file specially with the purpose of transporting the database through it. In that light, I fail to see the difference between a PNG image that represents a list of bakeries in London (which you and Andy would say clearly is a derived database or a substantial excerpt) and a PNG image with a map of London and little bread symbols where there's a bakery (which we do not want to be a derived database nor a substantial excerpt, or else the whole ODbL Produced Works idea would fall over and be useless - for example we could not mix our map with data licensed under another license). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
Hi Frederik, Andy, IANAL, but am still in a position to offer an opinion for discussion. Andy Allan wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: >> >>until now, most of us (I believe) have viewed the ODbL's "Produced >> Works" concept as relating to something like a PNG image made from >> the >> OSM database. [...] Note that just rendering the OSM database in PNG format doesn't necessarily create a Produced Work. >> I wonder what other forms of "Produced Works" there are. What, for >> example, about lists? Sure, lists can be Produced Works. The ODBL explicitly mentions '[text] resulting from using [...] the Contents'. Also lists can, in principle, be created in such a way as to qualify as an (analog or digital) database, although satisfying legal requirements for the list creator acquiring new sui generis rights on such a list would be very difficult if it is directly derived from OSM. >> If I produce from OSM a list of all bakeries in >> London, with addresses, and put that up on a web page - is that more >> something like a PNG image (a Produced Work), or is it already a >> database excerpt Such a list most certainly is a Substantial database excerpt and as such definitely is at least created from a Derivative Database. Publishing it on a public web page constitutes Public Use, so the notices as per section 4.2 ODBL are required. Whether or not the list is also a Produced Work is hard to say. The use cases in the OSM wiki appear to suggest that the ODBL doesn't answer this question for vector images. FWIW, I'd tend to say the list isn't a Produced Work if it's just a pretty-printed database dump (think yellow pages). >> (a little Javascript magic might allow you to sort the >> table or to filter out certain elements - certainly characteristics >> of a >> data base)? If the list is scriptable enough to make this possible for the *entire* database extraction, it definitely is *not* a Produced Work IMHO. >> If the latter - would things be any different if I offered the >> list (a) >> not on a web page, but as a PDF document which has less database-like >> capabilities, or (b) in printed form? > > The distribution mechanism has got nothing to do with it being a > database, as far as I know. That's correct; if the data on the web page is a database excerpt, printing it to PDF or on paper doesn't change that fact. Therefore posting the bakeries list's print-out on, say, an university's notice board would require the usual ODBL attribution. > [...] So I could arrange pebbles on a beach to > represent the binary encoding of planet.osm.bz2 (how many pebbles are > needed is an exercise for the reader) and that would still count as a > database. Heh :) nice example. In terms of the ODBL, it would probably constitute a Derived Work (due to the artistic rendering) based on a Derivative Database (in this case, an extraction of the whole of OSM's contents). So you as the creator of the pebble arrangement would have a traditional copyright on the arrangement, but you'd also need to put up a sign at the beach stating that the arrangement contains information from OSM and that it is made available under the terms of the ODBL. (BTW, how would one tag such a pebble arrangement? Perhaps something like recursive=yes... ;-) ) -- Arne Johannessen ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > until now, most of us (I believe) have viewed the ODbL's "Produced > Works" concept as relating to something like a PNG image made from the > OSM database. A map tile, if you will. > > I wonder what other forms of "Produced Works" there are. What, for > example, about lists? If I produce from OSM a list of all bakeries in > London, with addresses, and put that up on a web page - is that more > something like a PNG image (a Produced Work), or is it already a > database excerpt (a little Javascript magic might allow you to sort the > table or to filter out certain elements - certainly characteristics of a > data base)? Pass. I'll leave that to someone else to comment. > If the latter - would things be any different if I offered the list (a) > not on a web page, but as a PDF document which has less database-like > capabilities, or (b) in printed form? The distribution mechanism has got nothing to do with it being a database, as far as I know. The law works on a much more abstract basis than that. The definition of a database from the EU directive is "a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means". So I could arrange pebbles on a beach to represent the binary encoding of planet.osm.bz2 (how many pebbles are needed is an exercise for the reader) and that would still count as a database. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
Hi, until now, most of us (I believe) have viewed the ODbL's "Produced Works" concept as relating to something like a PNG image made from the OSM database. A map tile, if you will. I wonder what other forms of "Produced Works" there are. What, for example, about lists? If I produce from OSM a list of all bakeries in London, with addresses, and put that up on a web page - is that more something like a PNG image (a Produced Work), or is it already a database excerpt (a little Javascript magic might allow you to sort the table or to filter out certain elements - certainly characteristics of a data base)? If the latter - would things be any different if I offered the list (a) not on a web page, but as a PDF document which has less database-like capabilities, or (b) in printed form? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
