Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: And of course we are using the same rules for taking and giving, or? Same amounts of data we consider non-copyrightable and keep therefore in the database can be taken out from the new ODbl-OSM database as if they were PD? ODbL's concept if you take a lot of insubstantial extracts and combine them then they again form a substantial extract does not apply to copyright of individual contributions made under CC-BY-SA - if you take lots of non-copyrighted bits submitted by various users and combine them then they don't suddenly become copyrighted - or maybe they do, but then it's your copyright and not that of the original contributors I think that is the same with ODbL or CC-BY-SA or any licence, after all, a licence cannot affect what is covered by copyright. If you look at database rights (to the extent that anyone really understands what they do, since I believe case law is quite thin) then the same applies. And if you believe that the ODbL creates an enforceable contract with the whole world so that it can add additional restrictions that don't come from copyright or database right law, in that case too the contract is with the distributor of the map data (or perhaps the original aggregator - I'm not sure) not with the contributors. I think the other poster makes a good point which is that double standards are to be avoided. If OSM wishes to take the position that all map data, whether strictly copyrightable or not, must be used and copied only according to certain conditions, then it should treat its contributions the same way. You may be right that since the ODbL refers to 'Substantial' use of the contents, it does allow picking out small bits and pieces in the same way as might be done for a relicensing exercise. However, it also notes Substantial – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents. To be clear - of course the existing OSM map is not covered by ODbL, but please do unto others as you would have them do unto you. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Hi, Richard Weait wrote: Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right? Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes - certainly qualifies for never be considered for copyright because copyright needs humans to do something; I'm not sure about database right though. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On 14 October 2010 09:07, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: I've not been following the detail of this discussion. One of my worries is that a lot of things are said - maybe off-hand - that turn into assumptions that feed into later discussion. Since this is an area of law (database/copyright) in which I practice I suppose I'm rather sensitive to misconceptions, but it does concern me that OSM might be making its policies based on what a bunch of people think, having chewed the matter over on a mailing list and without formal legal advice (and my contributions to the list aren't that - I'm not instructed by OSMF). I just wanted to clarify this, in case it sounds like I am playing the I am a lawyer card and implying that non lawyers are not entitled to an opinion on any legal topic - which would of course be quite mistaken. What I am saying is this: First, that in my experience the most useful and practical thing that my clients do (and which I encourage them to do) is to think about what outcomes they want, rather than focussing on the law. It may be that those outcomes are very difficult or impossible to achieve legally, but once they are clear in their mind(s) what their priorities are, I can then advise them how much risk is associated with different choices they might make. Armed with that advice they can then make a final decision as to what to do. Lawyers (and the law) should be seen as very much subservient to policy, their job is to help you work out what you can do, not what you should do. Note I said how much risk because a lot of my work is associated exactly with this kind of crowd-sources/online intellectual property law and as most of you know there is not a lot of certainty about how the law applies even the the web in general, let alone to the more interesting uses of it. Some things are more risky than others, but if we all wanted to be cast-iron safe, there'd be very little e-commerce. So, the argument about what you want to achieve and what you may be able to achieve legally aren't the same thing, Second point, also gained from long experience, is that getting the law right via a mailing list like this is rarely safe. That is why I make it clear that I'm not giving legal advice (and phrase my answers accordingly). When giving an advice a lawyer will study the problem hard, check for any recent case law, (possibly) re-read any relevant case law to make sure exactly what nuances of meaning there might be, consult any academic commentary and sometimes talk to colleagues, before giving an opinion. A mailing list answer rarely involves that level of consideration. I expect the same is true of non-lawyers on this list (if you do all the above, then that's impressive). I can't tell you what to do. I'm just contributing because (i) OSM seems as an outsider to be a great project (ii) some of the legal difficulties presented by OSM are interesting to my legal academic mind. This is just an attempt to share some of my experience. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On 10/14/2010 07:42 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Richard Weait wrote: Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right? Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes - certainly qualifies for never be considered for copyright because copyright needs humans to do something; I'm not sure about database right though. Further to Francis's points (and he's too kind to the test for originality in the UK, it is *incredibly* low ;-) ), bear in mind that his Mandelbrot Set example holds even if he's written a bot or daemon to create images while he's asleep. A human being always, ultimately, causes software to be run. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
