Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Rob Myers writes:
>>What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a
>>database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the
>>granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we
>>regard points, ways, uploads or any other unit as the content of the
>>database. The content of the database is any pieces of data smaller than
>>the entire database.
>
> Anything - so a planet dump of Germany is the 'content'? Or if that is too
> much, what about a smaller extract the size of your neighbourhood?
Has this point been addressed? The way I see it, there are only two
possible interpretations of the DbCL license grant. 1) That it
affects all the contents, in whatever size the extract may be, and the
only thing that is *not* covered by the DbCL is the selection of the
contents, the metadata (e.g. table column names), and the indexes. 2)
That it affects only tiny extracts of data which are already public
domain anyway.
Is it okay to use the data to create a CC-BY-SA map of Germany? Is it
okay to use that very same data to create, and release under CC-BY-SA,
an XML (or PBF) description of that very same map? What about an SVG
map?
One key provision of the DbCL seems to be this. The DbCL "does not
cover any Database Rights, Database copyright, or contract over the
Contents as part of the Database." As I'm in a jurisdiction without
Database Rights, and don't plan to accept the ODbL contract, I'm
mainly concerned with what the part about "Database copyright" means.
Maybe it covers the selection of the contents, except to the extent
that the selection is obvious ("all roads", "all water features", "all
points of interest"). Maybe it covers the metadata and indexes,
except that this is already covered by the GPL license on the Rails
Port. So most importantly for me is the question as to whether or not
it covers the copyright, if any, on the ways themselves.
If it does, if the copyright, if any, on the ways themselves, is
public domain, then I don't see how there are any restrictions at all
for people in a non-database-rights jurisdiction who refuse to accept
the ODbL.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Matthias Julius wrote: > No, a license cannot protect any work or restrict what one can do with the > work. It can only give permissions. Of course, these permissions might > have some conditions (like BY-SA). The protection comes from the law > (copyright, database right, patent right, ...). What is not restricted by > the law is permitted. Depends how the license is written. If it's written as a unilateral conditional waiver (GPL, CC-BY-SA, Artistic License 1.0), then indeed it can only give permissions. However, if it's written as a bilateral contract (ODBL), then it might give permissions *and* impose restrictions. In the latter case, it's also very difficult to enforce. See Jacobsen v. Katzer for an explanation of these principles, which, while not directly applicable outside the jurisdiction of that particular court of appeals, gives a very sound explanation of the legal principles which should extend far outside its particular jurisdiction. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
adca03156...@localhost> Message-ID: <90c6e47a092dece1a7770a5cb6164...@localhost> X-Sender: li...@julius-net.net User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1 On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:39:46 +0100, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" wrote: > But there is no restriction to do with > any work that is not protected by license or PD. > In that sense any license is a restriction. No, a license cannot protect any work or restrict what one can do with the work. It can only give permissions. Of course, these permissions might have some conditions (like BY-SA). The protection comes from the law (copyright, database right, patent right, ...). What is not restricted by the law is permitted. Matthias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
But there is no restriction to do with any work that is not protected by license or PD. In that sense any license is a restriction. Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Matthias Julius Verzonden: Thursday, November 25, 2010 4:47 PM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:56:54 +, Rob Myers wrote: > On 11/25/2010 01:33 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: >> >> That is turning reality upside down. > > >> The only reason >> for any license is to restrict any user of data/map/dbase or >> whatever the license is for. > > The licence only restricts those people who would restrict others. > Specifically it restricts them from imposing further restrictions. Which > means that, in total, there are fewer restrictions. A license is a grant of permissions, possibly depending on some conditions. Some licenses are more permissive than others, but in general a license can not take privileges away. For the prime example of copyright the law restricts what one can do with published works. The copyright holder may give you a license to do something with the work that is normally prohibited by the law. But they can not prevent anyone to do something with the work that is permitted by copyright law. Matthias ___ 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] Database and its contents
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:56:54 +, Rob Myers wrote: > On 11/25/2010 01:33 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: >> >> That is turning reality upside down. > > >> The only reason >> for any license is to restrict any user of data/map/dbase or >> whatever the license is for. > > The licence only restricts those people who would restrict others. > Specifically it restricts them from imposing further restrictions. Which > means that, in total, there are fewer restrictions. A license is a grant of permissions, possibly depending on some conditions. Some licenses are more permissive than others, but in general a license can not take privileges away. For the prime example of copyright the law restricts what one can do with published works. The copyright holder may give you a license to do something with the work that is normally prohibited by the law. But they can not prevent anyone to do something with the work that is permitted by copyright law. Matthias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 11/25/2010 01:33 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: That is turning reality upside down. > The only reason for any license is to restrict any user of data/map/dbase or whatever the license is for. The licence only restricts those people who would restrict others. Specifically it restricts them from imposing further restrictions. Which means that, in total, there are fewer restrictions. Make us a list of license articles that do NOT limit the potential user, but stimulate him to invent new applications without any restrictions. All those that allow and guarantee the availability and use of the data. (putting restrictions = limiting freedom IMHO ) Then preventing restrictions is protecting freedom. :-) And I'm not sure OSM(F) is either unwilling or unable to challenge licence breaches in court. Who's gonna pay : Microsoft ? Well, Bing. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Well Rob, That is turning reality upside down. The only reason for any license is to restrict any user of data/map/dbase or whatever the license is for. Make us a list of license articles that do NOT limit the potential user, but stimulate him to invent new applications without any restrictions. (putting restrictions = limiting freedom IMHO ) >And I'm not sure OSM(F) is either unwilling or unable to challenge >licence breaches in court. Who's gonna pay : Microsoft ? Regards, Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Rob Myers Verzonden: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:36 AM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents On 11/25/2010 07:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > > 3) I don't care if anybody copies our data for any reason, Do you care if they prevent other people from doing the same? > because any other company will do the same, Well, yes, that's what the licences allow them to do. They just ensure that they cannot prevent anyone else from doing so. > and possibly we will ourselves. Not under the current CTs. ;-) > 4) I am a pragmatist (and to some extend anarchist ;<)) in that we are > not able and not willing to challenge any data theft in court. That isn't pragmatism, that's capitulation. And I'm not sure OSM(F) is either unwilling or unable to challenge licence breaches in court. > 5) Any license choosen conflicts with the OPEN & FREE concept, the basis > of OSM , and the most important reason why it became successful. A licence that protects the reality of that freedom supports it rather than conflicting with it, and is the reason why OSM became successful (or at the absolute least has not prevented it from succeeding). - Rob. ___ 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] Database and its contents
On 11/25/2010 07:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: 3) I don’t care if anybody copies our data for any reason, Do you care if they prevent other people from doing the same? because any other company will do the same, Well, yes, that's what the licences allow them to do. They just ensure that they cannot prevent anyone else from doing so. and possibly we will ourselves. Not under the current CTs. ;-) 4) I am a pragmatist (and to some extend anarchist ;<)) in that we are not able and not willing to challenge any data theft in court. That isn't pragmatism, that's capitulation. And I'm not sure OSM(F) is either unwilling or unable to challenge licence breaches in court. 5) Any license choosen conflicts with the OPEN & FREE concept, the basis of OSM , and the most important reason why it became successful. A licence that protects the reality of that freedom supports it rather than conflicting with it, and is the reason why OSM became successful (or at the absolute least has not prevented it from succeeding). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 25 November 2010 17:39, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > > > > > The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, > along with the other details. > Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed > for factual information. > > [] > I agree with that, and no facts can be protected by any law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the only positional fact be things like geocoding lookups? If you have to make a decision about placement doesn't this require some kind of creative process or decision on the placement, regardless if it is derived or interpreted? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
>If you think the position of this restaurant is a fact then you really need to >watch the Horizon documentary where Alan Davis tries to measure the length of >a piece of string: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00574dv > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00574dv> Any fact has a margin of error, an "error in representation" is something else as creativity. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) P Before printing, think about the environment. Van: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens 80n Verzonden: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:15 PM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Grant Slater wrote: On 23 November 2010 13:23, Grant Slater wrote: > On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis wrote: >> >> As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or >> the >> data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale >> photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them >> into >> another format that you then publish. >> > > Here is some data: > > changeset="6058195" user="Walter Schlögl" uid="78656" visible="true" > timestamp="2010-10-16T14:40:13Z"> > > > > > > The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, > along with the other details. If you think the position of this restaurant is a fact then you really need to watch the Horizon documentary where Alan Davis tries to measure the length of a piece of string: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00574dv > Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed > for factual information. > > Creativity is used in the above data. Typo, creativity is *NOT* used in the above data. >Whereas on the rendered map > http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity > has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create > the "halo" around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik > stylesheet. > > Regards > Grant > ___ 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] Database and its contents
>1) I am in the camp of those who don't care as long as the data is open and free. (You can see my reasons on the wiki page when I ran for the foundation). >2) I don't believe that CC-BY-SA would protect the project legally >Regarding 1), I am pragmatist, and people initially have chosen a share alike licence and therefore it would be very difficult to switch to a PD or an attribution licence. In any case, I >don't particularly care but I will respect the spirit of the initial licence (i.e. SA). >Emilie Laffray I agree, and i want to add: 3) I don't care if anybody copies our data for any reason, because any other company will do the same, and possibly we will ourselves. 4) I am a pragmatist (and to some extend anarchist ;<)) in that we are not able and not willing to challenge any data theft in court. 5) Any license choosen conflicts with the OPEN & FREE concept, the basis of OSM , and the most important reason why it became successful. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) P Before printing, think about the environment. <>___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed for factual information. [] I agree with that, and no facts can be protected by any law. Creativity is used in the above data. Whereas on the rendered map http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create the "halo" around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik stylesheet. [] as you say, the style sheet is protected, and possibly the resulting map (paper, png or jpeg). I personally think that the result (a graphic map) has not the same level of creativity, nor protection, as the method (stylesheet). Regards, Gert Gremmen Regards Grant ___ 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] Database and its contents
Francis Davey writes: Database copyright arises when the database is the author's "own intellectual creation". That means that some design or creativity has to have gone into the database - it can't simply be an assemblage of facts. Database right arises when there is a "substantial investment". It focuses on work not creativity. Lots of work in making a database won't get you copyright but may get you database right. It is much more likely that OSMF attracts database right than database copyright. Thanks for clarifying this. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 19:50, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To be precise a database right is earned when there is a "substantial > investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting" the contents of the Yes. I was deliberately avoiding side-tracking the discussion onto the nature of the investment - I'm keen to avoid sounding like I am lecturing. > database. Has the OSMF done enough to earn that right? Most obtaining has That's a good question and a tricky one. How much is "substantial" is not well settled in the case law - but many European jurisdictions seem to be quite generous at finding the existence of a right with relatively modest levels of investment. "substantial" could mean "not merely trivial" or "a large amount". But your question does not exhaust the enquiry - has OSMF a database right (or could it obtain one)? Its entirely possible for a large number of people to work together on a project so that *jointly* they own a database right in a jointly created database. I don't know much of OSM's history, but I'm guessing that it started out like that, without any clear assignment of rights between the contributors (looking at a history of the CT's suggests this), so that what you may have is a joint work. If the contributors licence their database rights to OSMF then OSMF will have sufficient rights to sublicense under ODbL (assuming lots of other things are true as well - I'm just looking at the ownership question). I think it would be easy enough to defend OSM being a database and there being a database right in its data. Who "owns" it may be less important, unless you try to sue for infringement of course, but as I understand existing policy, that is not OSMF's intention. > been done by contributors who are not members of OSMF and have no connection > with OSMF. As far as I know OSMF has no verification function and certainly They have _some_ connection in that they contributed to OSM with which OSMF is connected. > doesn't make a substantial investment in verification. As for presenting > they host a server running Mapnik and provide a planet dump and some APIs. > Their only investment is the cost of the hardware[1]. Quite. There's obviously a question of what "substantial" means - see above. > > In much of the database rights literature there is often a reference to the > $ value spent to create the database in question. Presumably this is > relevant to whether the right has been earned based on a substantial > investment. How does OSMF measure up on this, having spent just a few > thousand dollars on hardware? > Hard to say, although investment does not have to be of money, but of resources, so lots of people working hard in their spare time as volunteers counts. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Francis Davey writes: >To answer some of the questions raised by my comment (and not just this one). > >The sui generis database right exists only in the EU and the EEA. >All countries with the sui generis database right have harmonised the >threshold for database copyright as I have explained. Thanks. My followup question - which is not quite so much a question of pure fact, and addressed not to you but to the list in general - is that if database copyright applies wherever database right does, why not use copyright alone? If I've misunderstood what 'database copyright' means, and it's not as strong as ordinary copyright, please correct me. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 15:22, Grant Slater wrote: > On 23 November 2010 14:57, Ed Avis wrote: >> >>>No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over, >> >> Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only >> in >> Europe - is that so? >> > > What difference does it make? It does not effect ODbL and that is what > we are here to discuss. > To answer some of the questions raised by my comment (and not just this one). The sui generis database right exists only in the EU and the EEA. Most of the other jurisdictions that I am familiar with (Australia, US, to some extent New Zealand) do not have specific database rights - what protection there might be for collections of information will generally be under copyright (and in most cases this will have a much higher threshold than database copyright did in the UK and is not simply based on the amount of effort put into collecting the data). There are other (non-copyright) principles that may apply, for example some species of "hot news"/misappropriation protection might apply to certain database in the US (but almost certainly not OSM). The sui generis database right is relevant to ODbL because the ODbL incorporates the database right into its definition section: [“Database Right” – Means rights resulting from the Chapter III (“sui generis”) rights in the Database Directive (as amended and as transposed by member states), which includes the Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents, as well as any similar rights available in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 10.4.] So if another country outside the EU (or EEA?) were to implement a specific non-copyright protection of data, ODbL's "database right" protection would not apply to it. All countries with the sui generis database right have harmonised the threshold for database copyright as I have explained. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 14:57, Ed Avis wrote: > >>No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over, > > Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in > Europe - is that so? > What difference does it make? It does not effect ODbL and that is what we are here to discuss. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Grant Slater writes:
>>A database may attract either database right, copyright or
>>>both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right)
>>>is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold
>>>across Europe ("own intellectual creation").
>>Does this mean, then, that every country which has a database right also has
>>database copyright?
>No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over,
Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in
Europe - is that so?
--
Ed Avis
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 14:42, Ed Avis wrote:
> Francis Davey writes:
>
>>>If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright
>>>protection since 1997
>
>>Not quite. A database may attract either database right, copyright or
>>both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right)
>>is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold
>>across Europe ("own intellectual creation").
>
> Thanks for clarifying this.
>
> Does this mean, then, that every country which has a database right also has
> database copyright? (Perhaps there are some countries outside Europe which
> hold databases to be protectable via sui generis right but not via copyright.)
>
No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over, this
is why the ODbL, to create a balanced open playing field, uses 3
different approaches to the problem; copyright, contract and database
right.
Regards
Grant
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Francis Davey writes:
>>If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright
>>protection since 1997
>Not quite. A database may attract either database right, copyright or
>both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right)
>is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold
>across Europe ("own intellectual creation").
Thanks for clarifying this.
Does this mean, then, that every country which has a database right also has
database copyright? (Perhaps there are some countries outside Europe which
hold databases to be protectable via sui generis right but not via copyright.)
--
Ed Avis
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 14:14, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Here is some data: >> > >> > > > changeset="6058195" user="Walter Schlögl" uid="78656" visible="true" >> > timestamp="2010-10-16T14:40:13Z"> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, >> > along with the other details. > > If you think the position of this restaurant is a fact then you really need > to watch the Horizon documentary where Alan Davis tries to measure the > length of a piece of string: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00574dv > Hehe, I'll remember that next time I ask for a pint of beer; after all I could be missing at least 0.261485 millilitres. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 12:46, Emilie Laffray wrote:
>
[snip]
> If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright
> protection since 1997 due to the introduction of the European database law (
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/UK_Database_Law for more information).
Not quite. A database may attract either database right, copyright or
both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right)
is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold
across Europe ("own intellectual creation").
Whether something is, or is not, a database for either purpose is a
relatively straightforward question and is without prejudice to
whether or not it might be derivable (or derived from) some other kind
of work.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis wrote: > As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or > the > data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale > photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them > into > another format that you then publish. > > See that's where you are confusing maps representation and the underlying data. If I was to start a large scale photocopying of some commercial maps, I would infringe copyrights of the printed map. This doesn't infringe on any possible underlying rights since you are stopping at the map itself. This doesn't imply anything on the underlying data. You are voluntarily confusing the topic and this argument is definitely not a valid one. Whether you think it is wise or not that countries are passing database laws, they are becoming a reality and more and more countries are adopting them. Should we ignore reality in the end? While it may be comforting to be think that we are protected by the current licence and enough community pressure, there will always be a time when a company will ignore that. In terms of debate, there are three major sides: PD people (and to some extent attribution people), SA people, people who don't care as long as the data is open and free. The reaction of the three sides would be interesting if a company would violate the current licence. Since we are here, can I ask you two questions on pure licensing? The answer needs to be short else, it will be drowned in words to hide the true belief you have. 1) In which camp are you? 2) Do you believe that CC-BY-SA would protect the project legally? To be strictly fair, I will answer to the questions first. 1) I am in the camp of those who don't care as long as the data is open and free. (You can see my reasons on the wiki page when I ran for the foundation). 2) I don't believe that CC-BY-SA would protect the project legally Regarding 1), I am pragmatist, and people initially have chosen a share alike licence and therefore it would be very difficult to switch to a PD or an attribution licence. In any case, I don't particularly care but I will respect the spirit of the initial licence (i.e. SA). Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 13:23, Grant Slater wrote: > On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis wrote: >> >> As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or >> the >> data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale >> photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them >> into >> another format that you then publish. >> > > Here is some data: > > changeset="6058195" user="Walter Schlögl" uid="78656" visible="true" > timestamp="2010-10-16T14:40:13Z"> > > > > > > The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, > along with the other details. > Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed > for factual information. > > Creativity is used in the above data. Typo, creativity is *NOT* used in the above data. >Whereas on the rendered map > http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity > has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create > the "halo" around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik > stylesheet. > > Regards > Grant > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis wrote: > > As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the > data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale > photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them > into > another format that you then publish. > Here is some data: The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed for factual information. Creativity is used in the above data. Whereas on the rendered map http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create the "halo" around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik stylesheet. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Emilie Laffray writes: >Amusingly enough, I don't know of any map providers using copyrights to protect >their data. All map providers use copyright to protect their data. Look at any map online or offline and you will see a copyright notice, for example Map data (c) 2010 Europa Technologies, Google, PPWK, Tele Atlas Perhaps you mean that they don't use only copyright but also assert every right that they possibly can, including database rights. This is quite true. Usually a company's legal team will advise them to grab everything, and even to add additional restrictions not backed by any law. (Even if they are struck down in court, you're still no worse off than if you hadn't given it a try.) Certainly the database right exists in some countries and we need to license it. That doesn't of itself justify trying to export it to countries which have (wisely in my opinion) decided not to enact such a right. As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them into another format that you then publish. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 11:33, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Indeed, using something that is so novel and untested as ODbL to license > OSM's work is foolish. Especially given that copyright as applied to maps > is well established and have been in use for a couple of hundred years. > > Dear Etienne, you are correct that copyrights are applied to maps for centuries and I expect it to continue for the coming centuries. On the topic of vectorial database, I believe that we will start seeing more and more people to move towards licenses which are protecting databases like what is happening with Paris (they are choosing ODbL, and they have a large legal team). I suspect as database law usage is expanding, we will see more and more moves towards licence like CC0, ODbL, ODb-BY, etc . Recently, someone from Creative Common posted that they are closely looking at the debate to see how they could improve their licensing to take into account databases. People don't spend time inventing new licences for the sake of it; it corresponds to the need of adapting to a changing legal environment. If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright protection since 1997 due to the introduction of the European database law ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/UK_Database_Law for more information). You can argue that the database containing map data is different from some yellow pages database. I disagree with that statement. I believe that a database (as defined by the link above) of geographical information is not different than a database of information. ODbL may be untested, but so is CC-BY-SA, and so was the GPL until some time ago. The point is that you have to choose what gives you the strongest legal footing in the end, as they are all untested. Amusingly enough, I don't know of any map providers using copyrights to protect their data. Emily Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > Rob Myers writes: > > >>I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database' > >>versus 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in > >>particular. > > > >Imagine a database of names, song titles, photographs, recipes, poems or > >credit card numbers. > > Yes, this makes perfect sense. What seems nonsensical is taking that and > trying to apply it to the quite different world of geodata, maps and OSM. > > >What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a > >database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the > >granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we > >regard points, ways, uploads or any other unit as the content of the > >database. The content of the database is any pieces of data smaller than > >the entire database. > > Anything - so a planet dump of Germany is the 'content'? Or if that is too > much, what about a smaller extract the size of your neighbourhood? > > I don't want to say that just because the boundary is fuzzy the concept > must > be unworkable. Real life and the law deal with fuzzy boundaries all the > time. > But to me it seems not merely fuzzy, but nonexistent. > > The thing is that an individual piece of data is entirely meaningless by > itself - whereas you can take a photograph out of Wikipedia and use just > that photo, it makes no sense to extract 'a point', 'a way' or even 'a tag' > from OSM. The only unit that makes sense to use is a partial extract of > the whole thing - complete with ways, points and tags - which then is > clearly > a 'database' and not mere 'contents'. Or if it is 'contents' then equally > the > entirety of OSM taken as a whole must be considered 'contents'. > > If we wanted to, we could produce an explanatory text which would accompany > the licence terms and explain with examples what the OSM project considers > to > be its database and what we think of as contents. But that doesn't mean > the > distinction exists in law or would be understood by a court. It would just > be > on the level of social convention and a request for people to follow the > spirit of the licence as well as the letter. Which is fine - I'm all in > favour > of that - but it makes all the elaborate legal gymnastics seem a bit > pointless. > > >Any complexity in this is a product of the law not the licence... > > I don't think it is a case of the law being complex, but rather of trying > to > invent new constructs that don't correspond to the law at all, or indeed to > common sense. (The example of a collection of recordings or photographs is > fine, but that's not what we are dealing with.) That is why things become > foggy. > Indeed, using something that is so novel and untested as ODbL to license OSM's work is foolish. Especially given that copyright as applied to maps is well established and have been in use for a couple of hundred years. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents (was: Best license for future tiles?)
Grant Slater writes: >>>The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not >>>convinced that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database >>>and it's content. >Database definition as per the ODbL (definition modelled on EU >Database Directive 96/9/EC): >“Database” – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a >systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic >or other means offered under the terms of this License. That would apply to anything created from OSM, wouldn't it? Even a printed map is certainly arranged in a systematic and methodical way. >Anything "substantial" is governed by the ODbL otherwise DbCL. >See the guideline on substantial here: >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline Thanks, this is something concrete. Less than 100 features - you're in the clear. More than that (with some exceptions) - considered substantial and must be produced under ODbL. I still don't quite get what the 'contents' are, though, and how some 'contents' can ever be considered in isolation from the 'database' that holds them. Even if you extract only half a square mile of the map you still have a database, albeit a smaller one. Even if you only want a list of all coffee shops you still have a database. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents (was: Best license for future tiles?)
On 22 November 2010 22:25, Ed Avis wrote: > 80n <80n...@...> writes: > >>The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced >>that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's >>content. I'm certain that it isn't understood by most ordinary people. > Database definition as per the ODbL (definition modelled on EU Database Directive 96/9/EC): “Database” – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License. Anything "substantial" is governed by the ODbL otherwise DbCL. See the guideline on substantial here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline Database is not the tech definition; Postgresql, MySQL... SQL etc. > I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database' > versus > 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in particular. > See above. OSM is a database collection of factual information which when rendered makes a map. OSM's main product is not a map but a database. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 11/22/2010 10:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote: 80n<80n...@...> writes: The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's content. I'm certain that it isn't understood by most ordinary people. I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database' versus 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in particular. Imagine a database of names, song titles, photographs, recipes, poems or credit card numbers. The individual names, song titles, photographs, recipes, poems or credit card numbers are the content. The database of names, song titles, photographs, recipes, poems or credit card numbers is the database. Some of those kinds of contents can be individually copyrighted (notably photographs and poems). Some cannot (notably recipes and credit card numbers). You can claim a copyright on a collection of works that isn't a database. It's how public domain clip art collections, public domain music CDs, and public domain text reprints end up with copyright notices on them. The copyright on the collection means that people can use the individual contents of the collection, but if they reproduce the collection as a whole they run up against the collective copyright. At which point between the entire collection and a single item do you stop infringing the copyright on the collection if you copy it? Ask a lawyer... Copyright (and DB right) on databases and their contents is, to my mind, similar to this. It's copyright on the collection, not the collected. What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we regard points, ways, uploads or any other unit as the content of the database. The content of the database is any pieces of data smaller than the entire database. The fact that the contents is DbCL is what allows you to make BY-SA maps from the database contents at all (thank you Anthony for helping me to understand the details of this). The fact that the database is ODbL is what ensures that substantial extracts of that database (substantial collections of that contents) cannot be used without passing on the freedoms that the ODbL gives. If that's too much, think of the database as the totality of data plus the DB schema, and think of the contents as anything less, and don't worry about the precise point at which the land meets the sea. ;-) Any complexity in this is a product of the law not the licence... (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. If I'm wrong about any of this *please* correct me. :-) ) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents (was: Best license for future tiles?)
80n <80n...@...> writes: >The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced >that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's >content. I'm certain that it isn't understood by most ordinary people. I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database' versus 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in particular. Does anybody? -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
