Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Jo]

It's almost impossible to quit this list, we're very inclusive. Or maybe
not, just like any other mailing list, there are some links at the bottom
of each email. One of them has listinfo in the url. Click on it and you'll
get magically redirected to a web page where you can unsubscribe.

Cheers,

Jo

2016-03-14 18:23 GMT+01:00 James Tabor :

> If someone could remove me from the email list that would be great. Could
> not find an unsub button.
>
> Many thanks
>
> James
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 14 Mar 2016, at 15:20, Tom Lee  wrote:
>
> I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions.
>
> First, the EU Database Right and copyright are related but distinct. One
> or both can apply to a work. From the ODbL: "Database Rights can apply even
> when there is no copyright over the Database." German copyright's notion of
> "fading" is interesting but as far as I know the primary documents of OSM
> are built exclusively on EU and UK law (I could easily be mistaken about
> this!).
>
> Second, the project license is a grant of rights *beyond* the rights
> automatically conveyed by the Database Right and copyright.  Judgments
> about the status of different classes of work may affect the limits of
> which rights OSM can reserve, but they will generally not affect what
> rights it is able to grant to users (or the terminology it selects for
> various concepts).
>
> With all of that said, I think there's plenty of room for creating useful
> guidelines on how to interpret the ODbL, so I would welcome the
> clarifications that others have called for. But I tend to agree with others
> on this thread that this ruling doesn't substantially change the legal
> environment surrounding OSM licensing.
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Tobias Wendorff <
> tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de> wrote:
>
>> Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:07 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>> >
>> > shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result
>> > wasn't intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data,
>> but
>> > it was used to do it?
>>
>> I don't think you can permit extraction of the data, since that's the
>> principe of share-alike?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[James Tabor]

If someone could remove me from the email list that would be great. Could not 
find an unsub button. 

Many thanks

James 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Mar 2016, at 15:20, Tom Lee  wrote:
> 
> I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions. 
> 
> First, the EU Database Right and copyright are related but distinct. One or 
> both can apply to a work. From the ODbL: "Database Rights can apply even when 
> there is no copyright over the Database." German copyright's notion of 
> "fading" is interesting but as far as I know the primary documents of OSM are 
> built exclusively on EU and UK law (I could easily be mistaken about this!).
> 
> Second, the project license is a grant of rights *beyond* the rights 
> automatically conveyed by the Database Right and copyright.  Judgments about 
> the status of different classes of work may affect the limits of which rights 
> OSM can reserve, but they will generally not affect what rights it is able to 
> grant to users (or the terminology it selects for various concepts).
> 
> With all of that said, I think there's plenty of room for creating useful 
> guidelines on how to interpret the ODbL, so I would welcome the 
> clarifications that others have called for. But I tend to agree with others 
> on this thread that this ruling doesn't substantially change the legal 
> environment surrounding OSM licensing.
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Tobias Wendorff 
>>  wrote:
>> Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:07 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>> >
>> > shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result
>> > wasn't intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data, but
>> > it was used to do it?
>> 
>> I don't think you can permit extraction of the data, since that's the
>> principe of share-alike?
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Tom Lee]

I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions.

First, the EU Database Right and copyright are related but distinct. One or
both can apply to a work. From the ODbL: "Database Rights can apply even
when there is no copyright over the Database." German copyright's notion of
"fading" is interesting but as far as I know the primary documents of OSM
are built exclusively on EU and UK law (I could easily be mistaken about
this!).

Second, the project license is a grant of rights *beyond* the rights
automatically conveyed by the Database Right and copyright.  Judgments
about the status of different classes of work may affect the limits of
which rights OSM can reserve, but they will generally not affect what
rights it is able to grant to users (or the terminology it selects for
various concepts).

With all of that said, I think there's plenty of room for creating useful
guidelines on how to interpret the ODbL, so I would welcome the
clarifications that others have called for. But I tend to agree with others
on this thread that this ruling doesn't substantially change the legal
environment surrounding OSM licensing.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Tobias Wendorff <
tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de> wrote:

> Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:07 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> >
> > shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result
> > wasn't intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data, but
> > it was used to do it?
>
> I don't think you can permit extraction of the data, since that's the
> principe of share-alike?
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> "If the published result of your project is intended for the extraction
> of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work."


shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result wasn't 
intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data, but it was used 
to do it?


cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:24 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> what other things besides maps can be produced from our db? Not many (yes,
> you. could make "lists", but they're DBs as well). In the end, something
> like a carpet or a tshirt or a bag are just objects to apply a map on.
> FWIW, our guidelines even define electronically stored databases as
> produced works in some circumstances (e.g. garmin maps).

See the discussion with Simon. The Community Guidelines distinugish
between a database and a produced work only. So there might be the
possibility of of "legal limbo"

By the way: The German copyright law allows "fading" of copyrights.
This means, if a new work is based on the original one, but differs
a lot, it can have its own copyright.

If you create a list based on OpenStreetMap data, could all the
chars and release the list of chars, it might be faded. BUT: This only
*might* apply to OpenStreetMap, since fading only appears on single works,
not on databases or database works. For database works, I wasn't able to
find any decisions about this.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:18 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline
>
> Which covers what Christoph has already pointed out, I'm not sure why we
> would want to differentiate between maps and other produced works as you
> suggest.

Good example, thanks. Check this quote from the Guideline:
"If the published result of your project is intended for the extraction
of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work."

One could write "This map is intended for extraction of the original data.
The extraction has to be released under ODbL etc.". Then other clauses,
like 4.5(b) doesn't come in, since they're for "Produced Works" only.

Since the released map isn't a produced work then (according to the
Guidline's text), one doesn't need to release the underlying database,
since the released work *is* a database already.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> I'm seeing a problem in the formulation: it might be not correct to call
> a map a "produced work" anymore.


what other things besides maps can be produced from our db? Not many (yes, you. 
could make "lists", but they're DBs as well). In the end, something like a 
carpet or a tshirt or a bag are just objects to apply a map on. FWIW, our 
guidelines even define electronically stored databases as produced works in 
some circumstances (e.g. garmin maps).

cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.03.2016 um 12:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> I totally understand your expaination and I often used the same words
> to describe ODbL. But the OSMF should release a notification to clearly
> state the difference between other produced works (like artwork based
> on OpenStreetMap) and printed maps.
>
>
See
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline

Which covers what Christoph has already pointed out, I'm not sure why we
would want to differentiate between maps and other produced works as you
suggest.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 12:39 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> I believe it has always been clear that the information stored in a map
> was a kind of database by arrangement and selection, e.g. you can't take a
> OSM based printed map that was released under cc0 and derive the contained
> information as cc0 (it remains ODbL), and you couldn't before this ECK
> decision

It might have been theoretical clear to use that this information is
protected as a database, but now we've got the legal confirmation.

I'm seeing a problem in the formulation: it might be not correct to call
a map a "produced work" anymore.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 11:39 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> There needs to be a revision of the ODbL to cleary state, what's a
> printed map. From the legal site, it's not a "produced work" by the
> old meaning anymore.


I believe it has always been clear that the information stored in a map was a 
kind of database by arrangement and selection, e.g. you can't take a OSM based 
printed map that was released under cc0 and derive the contained information as 
cc0 (it remains ODbL), and you couldn't before this ECK decision 

cheers 
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Tobias Wendorff]

Hi Christoph,

Am So, 13.03.2016, 12:18 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Sunday 13 March 2016, Tobias Wendorff wrote:
>
> I don't think there has ever been any serious doubt that printed maps
> can be databases.

What? There has been a lot of discussions about this in the last years.
Do you have access to "Kartographische Nachrichten"? I could link you
to many blogs and professional discussions. Since the articles are
in the German language, they might be useless for most readers on this
list.

> I also don't see any immediate consequences of this for the ODbL and
> OSM coming from that.

See below.

> It has long been a widely accepted notion that if you use an ODbL
> produced work as a database, i.e. you extract semantic information from
> it and use it in a database-like way, you are subject to the
> derivative/collective database regulations of the ODbL, meaning you
> cannot whitewash ODbL data from share-alike by generating a produced
> work and reverse engineering data from it again.

I totally understand your expaination and I often used the same words
to describe ODbL. But the OSMF should release a notification to clearly
state the difference between other produced works (like artwork based
on OpenStreetMap) and printed maps.

For example, up to now, section 4.5 applied also to maps:
"Using this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a
Collective Database to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative
Database for purposes of Section 4.4;"

But this isn't valid anymore, since they're classified as (a kind of)
deritative database by the highest court, we've got in Europe.

So, what's he bad thing for OSM now? I'm seeing a problem in terms of
4.5 and OSMF's "horizontal layers". This section isn't valid for printed
maps anymore. So the community guidelines should be revised to fit to
ECJ's interpretation.

Best regards,
Tobias


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 13 March 2016, Tobias Wendorff wrote:
>
> I don't know, if this thematic has already been discussed on this
> list, but  European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed the
> classification as a database for (printed) topographic maps (see EuZW
> 2015, 955). Yet the commentaries can't foresee the consequences, but
> publishers are happy to see a stronger proction of their maps and
> data.

I don't think there has ever been any serious doubt that printed maps 
can be databases.  I also don't see any immediate consequences of this 
for the ODbL and OSM coming from that.

It has long been a widely accepted notion that if you use an ODbL 
produced work as a database, i.e. you extract semantic information from 
it and use it in a database-like way, you are subject to the 
derivative/collective database regulations of the ODbL, meaning you 
cannot whitewash ODbL data from share-alike by generating a produced 
work and reverse engineering data from it again.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Tobias Wendorff]

Hi there,

I don't know, if this thematic has already been discussed on this list,
but  European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed the classification
as a database for (printed) topographic maps (see EuZW 2015, 955).
Yet the commentaries can't foresee the consequences, but publishers
are happy to see a stronger proction of their maps and data.

So here's the new problem: Printed maps are equal to databases in terms
of 96/9/EG. And that's exactly the same directive, ODbL is about.

What were ODbL's definition of data classifications up to now?
1. a derived database, like osm2pgsql database imports,
2. a collective database, with different licences seperated in tables,
3. a produced work, like a printed map / a printed T-Shirt / a tattoo.

According to the latest decision of ECJ, a printed map actually is a
database in term of the database directory and of the ODbL.

There needs to be a revision of the ODbL to cleary state, what's a
printed map. From the legal site, it's not a "produced work" by the
old meaning anymore.

Best regards,
Tobias


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk