Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Sorry for replying late but I had to leave for the night shift yesterday. On 2011-07-05 15:28, John Smith wrote: On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node? If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough? The same as in an identical result, if they use the same sources then the only difference is their creative interpretation of the data sources into producing map data. Let's leave the theory and do the little experiment you suggested :-). I guess, you consider the way 115031489[1] as copyright protected, right? Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? Bye, Andreas 1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/115031489 ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='-26' visible='true' lat='-31.07050351473609' lon='152.77789484357737' / node id='-24' visible='true' lat='-31.070982946416333' lon='152.7780923977054' / node id='-22' visible='true' lat='-31.07140597236209' lon='152.77843811742946' / node id='-20' visible='true' lat='-31.072012306269084' lon='152.77903077981358' / node id='-18' visible='true' lat='-31.072515231459942' lon='152.7799417238484' / node id='-16' visible='true' lat='-31.072712640620924' lon='152.7804795100858' / node id='-14' visible='true' lat='-31.07304165497846' lon='152.7818349509087' / node id='-12' visible='true' lat='-31.0730745563516' lon='152.7822410343941' / node id='-10' visible='true' lat='-31.073013453792427' lon='152.78268553118215' / node id='-8' visible='true' lat='-31.072933550386573' lon='152.7828995481542' / node id='-6' visible='true' lat='-31.072049908244523' lon='152.78388183117966' / node id='-4' visible='true' lat='-31.071561081404' lon='152.78424401374775' / node id='-2' visible='true' lat='-31.069803904536826' lon='152.777615791055' / way id='-29' visible='true' nd ref='-2' / nd ref='-26' / nd ref='-24' / nd ref='-22' / nd ref='-20' / nd ref='-18' / nd ref='-16' / nd ref='-14' / nd ref='-12' / nd ref='-10' / nd ref='-8' / nd ref='-6' / nd ref='-4' / /way /osm ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='-49' visible='true' lat='-31.071011148204605' lon='152.77810886054942' / node id='-47' visible='true' lat='-31.07190420050686' lon='152.7788990770615' / node id='-45' visible='true' lat='-31.072425927181033' lon='152.7797606325643' / node id='-43' visible='true' lat='-31.072726741259594' lon='152.78051243577377' / node id='-41' visible='true' lat='-31.073055755568333' lon='152.781911777514' / node id='-39' visible='true' lat='-31.073079256546816' lon='152.78223005916473' / node id='-37' visible='true' lat='-31.07299465299708' lon='152.78278979586077' / node id='-35' visible='true' lat='-31.072712640620917' lon='152.7831958793462' / node id='-33' visible='true' lat='-31.072021706764325' lon='152.78392024448226' / node id='-31' visible='true' lat='-31.071739691502458' lon='152.7840848729223' / node id='-29' visible='true' lat='-31.06975340701974' lon='152.77756862683484' / way id='-52' visible='true' nd ref='-29' / nd ref='-49' / nd ref='-47' / nd ref='-45' / nd ref='-43' / nd ref='-41' / nd ref='-39' / nd ref='-37' / nd ref='-35' / nd ref='-33' / nd ref='-31' / /way /osm ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='-111' visible='true' lat='-31.070769336398953' lon='152.77796373509094' / node id='-109' visible='true' lat='-31.07107015571834' lon='152.7781338511456' / node id='-107' visible='true' lat='-31.07193970621209' lon='152.77894601811636' / node id='-105' visible='true' lat='-31.072301624884776' lon='152.77954416811514' / node id='-103' visible='true' lat='-31.07268234304071' lon='152.78043316169132' / node id='-101' visible='true' lat='-31.07296905570743' lon='152.78164043691808' / node id='-99' visible='true' lat='-31.073048959083444' lon='152.78217273554088' / node id='-97' visible='true' lat='-31.072983156308062' lon='152.78269954654897' / node id='-95' visible='true' lat='-31.072879751854753' lon='152.78293002636494' / node id='-93' visible='true' lat='-31.071977308216237' lon='152.78390682177584' / node id='-91' visible='true' lat='-31.072531936050165' lon='152.7800106153619' / node id='-90' visible='true' lat='-31.06986450152192' lon='152.77756862683484' / way id='-114' visible='true' nd ref='-90' / nd ref='-111' / nd ref='-109' / nd ref='-107' / nd
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:17 PM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world can be classified as creative work, as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his effort, and any deviation is just imperfection and corrected once the right information is available. We aren't for the most part trying to make raster images of aerial imagery, so there is a lot of creativity that goes into making interpretations of the real world. [GG] Involuntary creativity then ! I never met a OSM mapper saying he is using his creativity to create an original view of the world. Its not just a lack in precision and perfection that makes a work creative, the creator must also have the intention to add something of himself. In terms of copyright this doesn't matter, just like if you write a few lines of whatever, you automatically receive copyright on your work. [GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use in the digital era, their application is too large and too wide, and information can be copied without loss. The application of copyright law is expensive and full of pitfalls. See what happens with movies and mp3 on P2P networks. These are outdated legal texts, and have to be redefined. In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database. In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there is human involvement that's all that matters. [GG] Is that true ??? I would reformulate that as follows: In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of human coordinated creativity that matters. Not the mere fact that there are humans involved makes it copyrighted. I think you agree with me that software is copyrighted due to the algorithms implemented, a proof of effort and creativity. It's not the output of the software that is copyrighted by the writer of the software, but the source code. The output can be copyrighted, if created by copyrighted input. OSM is the same. We have a set of algorithms and 200K+ human CPUs that as execute the algorithm defined by the community. Nothing creative there but the algorithms. Its not the output that is copyrightable. The input is the real world, be it by sometimes using media (bing) that are copyrighted as a picture, not the information it is providing. Just like art photography , you cannot copyright Marilyn Monroe on a picture, but it's the composition, exposure time, color balance, moment the picture was taken etc. BUT NOT THE PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT. You may conclude she is blond and has big tits without infringement of copyright. That is what we do with BING images. Gert ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 02/07/2011 17:15, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT, while B has. Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license change? I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a complete waste of time. Wasn't it decided years ago that tag-less nodes are irrelevant should be deleted? It's certainly what I've been doing. If users want nodes as reference points they should add a note tag with an explanation. Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, Dave F. wrote: I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a complete waste of time. It is good that you have the modesty to assume that you're missing something rather than 10 others are completely wasting their time ;) in this case you are indeed missing (or I failed to mention explicitly) that we are talking about nodes _that are used by a way_. 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] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst lt;rich...@systemed.netgt; wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free and Open license without the need for further checks. No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in November 2010 and subsequently adopted. 1.2.x say: If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). Frederik Ramm wrote: On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote: Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current license and thus clause 2 only applies to the rights held by the contributor and not to all data contributed by the contributor, it might be a good time to think about the practical implications of this. As it currently stands, I am kind of with Frederik, that this basically effectively rules out any future relicensing, as it is impossible to know which rights (and restrictions) exist in the data at the moment. Nevertheless, I think it is a reasonably good compromise between the position of making it possible to use data other than PD data and still having the flexibility to relicense if there really is a necessity in future. So the question is what can we do to make this compromise practically feasible? Frederik Ramm wrote: This situation could be made a little less of a problem by requesting that anyone who contributes data that is not available for arbitrary relicensing under the CT (i.e. any free and open license etc.etc.) should flag such data in a well-defined way. Then, in a future relicensing process we could assume that any data not flagged can be relicensed at will, and only data that is flagged needs to be more closely investigated. I think this will be key. For all data, it needs to be clear a) who holds any rights in the data and b) what exact restrictions apply to the data. For all data originally collected by an osm contributor this is clearly stated in clause 2. But there currently is no way to flag data as having additional restrictions applied (because it is a third party import with an attached license) The best we currently have is the wiki import catalogue[2], but a) not all imports are registered there and b) a lot of entries are useless with respect to the exact licensing terms of the data and what agreements exist. The most logical place perhaps to record such info is the OSM account. All data that is contributed to OSM for which not all rights stated in section 2 of the contributor terms are given to OSMF, needs to be contributed under a special osm account to which the exact licensing requirements are attached and contact details of the original rights holder. It is to some degree already the recommended practice, but it is in no way enforced. For future relicensing to remain feasible, this would however need to be enforced. For existing accounts, that have previously mixed data, it might need a more fine grained possibility e.g. per changeset, to parcel out the rights held in the data again. Frederik Ramm wrote: It is too late to upgrade the CT with such a requirement, but we could still set up a community norm to that effect. I don't think it is too late to upgrade the CT, to clarify this and make it explicit that you need to use a special osm account with a link to the license if you cannot grant all rights mentioned in clause 2 and can only comply with clause 1. These are local changes (unlike any changes to e.g. the voting requirements), so there shouldn't be a problem if different accounts use different versions of the CT, like it is already the case with version 1.0 and 1.2.4. Kai [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6555428.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 7 July 2011 04:03, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current license and thus clause 2 only applies to the rights held by the contributor and not to all data contributed by the contributor, it might be a good time to think about the practical implications of this. It's my understanding that the OS data needs to be attributed directly or indirectly, CC-by-SA offers this, but the ODBL doesn't, so if you mean current license as in CC-by-SA then sure. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your point here, since you are 1 person, not 10. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 06/07/2011 18:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Dave F. wrote: I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a complete waste of time. It is good that you have the modesty to assume that you're missing something rather than 10 others are completely wasting their time ;) in this case you are indeed missing (or I failed to mention explicitly) that we are talking about nodes _that are used by a way_. Actually, most of those ten appear to have gone off at a tangent to discuss other matters. I must be still missing the plot. If, by _used_ you mean that it's a part of the way, then *millions* of nodes have no attributes. If one of these gets moved then the whole way gets updated, making your point mute. Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-06 20:23, John Smith wrote: On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your point here, since you are 1 person, not 10. Ok, than I invite anyone reading this to post his/her version :-). But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 06:12, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright? Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this? Which is of course the real issue, copyright does exist on the content, and assumptions have to be made about what is likely to have happened. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-06 22:17, John Smith wrote: Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this? No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM map or by just moving randomly some nodes. IMHO that's a very weak protection for a cc-by-sa map. Which is of course the real issue, copyright does exist on the content, and assumptions have to be made about what is likely to have happened. BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river is not enough: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001.html Unofficial Translation: Reproducing of geographical facts which one gets by surveying (for example the course of a mountain range, a river or a street or the location of a locality) in a map isn't protected by copyright (Urheberrecht) Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for IMHO that's a very weak protection for a cc-by-sa map. How will the ODBL help here any better? This is an issue for all maps and this is why map companies put in trap streets. BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river is not enough: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001.html Unofficial Translation: Reproducing of geographical facts which one gets by surveying (for example the course of a mountain range, a river or a street or the location of a locality) in a map isn't protected by copyright (Urheberrecht) So you are planning to copy from google maps then? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 08:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Google in addition have their ToS. So one person copies tiles and breaches contract and gives them to another person who is only bound by copyright ... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 06/07/2011 21:04, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Dave F. wrote: If one of these gets moved then the whole way gets updated, No. Substantively, that is what happens, but technically, in the database, it is not. In the database, we go from: way id=1nd id=8nd id=9nd id=10/way node id=8 lat=82 lon=18 / node id=9 lat=81 lon=18 / node id=10 lat=81 lon=17 / to: way id=1nd id=8nd id=9nd id=10/way node id=8 lat=81 lon=17 / node id=9 lat=80 lon=17 / node id=10 lat=80 lon=16 / Of course, I think that obviously this: node id=8 lat=81 lon=17 / node id=9 lat=80 lon=17 / node id=10 lat=80 lon=16 / is a derivative of this: way id=1nd id=8nd id=9nd id=10/way node id=8 lat=82 lon=18 / node id=9 lat=81 lon=18 / node id=10 lat=81 lon=17 / (assuming a way with, say, 1000 nodes rather than 3...where between 3 and 1000 you can stop, well, that's a different question) Well, I learn something new every day. This explains a lot - as to why entities keep moving but there's no record of it. Can someone please explain the logic of not recording major changes in the database such as shifting an entity? Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Am 06.07.2011 20:31, schrieb John Smith: On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use in the digital era, You were talking about databases, however databases can still store copyrightable content, in this case it's copyright that we're talking about, if copyright weren't an issue the database could just be relicensed, but there is copyright involved so it can't. No, no, no, we are going through this slow and painful process because the OSMF stated that it would ask each contributor to re-license their data, simply because that's the right thing to do. That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we are simply pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend hours arguing about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just pretending-. Because the whole thing is more an ethical question than a legal one, I have suggested before (on talk-de) the following resolution objects (points and ways) created by CT accepters stay in, in all version, objects created by CT objectors get thrown out in all versions. Nice and symmetric and equally distributes the pain. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we are simply pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend hours arguing about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just pretending-. Think that all you like, it won't make it any more true than the comment about copyright not really applying in the digital age, the fact is maps and map making are covered by copyright, and copyright is recognised in most countries. Otherwise we could take other copyrighted maps and copy them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Am 06.07.2011 23:25, schrieb Andreas Perstinger: BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river is not enough: Which is really not a big surprise, there a many many activities that we engage in day by day in which you continuously make decisions (as in mapping). Should I place the brick a bit more to the left or to the right, should I place a node there or better here. Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it for creativity (not that a crooked brick wall couldn't be a work of art, but most of the time it's just crooked). Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it for creativity I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the morally right thing to do which is usually where laws stem from. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Am 07.07.2011 01:40, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we are simply pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend hours arguing about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just pretending-. Think that all you like, it won't make it any more true than the comment about copyright not really applying in the digital age, the fact is maps and map making are covered by copyright, and copyright is recognised in most countries. Otherwise we could take other copyrighted maps and copy them. -Maps- are covered by copyright. But a pile of geo data is not a map, and I can use it for many many purposes with output that nobody would ever confuse with a map. Just as the collections of measurements that mappers made before the dawn of computers were not a map, but simply the underlying data. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. Simon Am 07.07.2011 01:54, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it for creativity I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the morally right thing to do which is usually where laws stem from. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Am 07.07.2011 01:56, schrieb Anthony: ... There certainly is creativity involved in making a brick wall. Choosing a herringbone bond vs. a stretcher bond, for instance. And in some cases it can be copyrightable - not if it's just a herringbone or a stretcher bond, but if the pattern is unique enough, it's certainly copyrightable. Depends on the specifics. Just like mapping. Just like in map-making, not in surveying. If you design a nice brick pattern clearly the pattern has potential to be protectable, however a builder imperfectly following your pattern is not being creative. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
In terms of laws, sure. Am 07.07.2011 02:08, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters) which doesn't make it recent, but still twice as old as copyright law. The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not moral as you imply. Simon Am 07.07.2011 02:12, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 10:10, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: In terms of laws, sure. Well copying wasn't much of a problem until the invention of the printing press, which according to you was relatively recent as well. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 10:20, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters) which doesn't make it recent, but still twice as old as copyright law. The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not moral as you imply. How many painters die poor? What about famous composers? Economics became an issue much later. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
