Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some questions about " Produced Works" under the ODbL

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Oliver (skobbler  writes:

> Consequently this means that if you put layer (not an image) of e.g. outlets
> like McDonalds on the map (and fulfill the criteria of substantiability -
> meaning more than 100) than you have to make these outlet database
> available. So far, I was assuming that a layer of POIs on top of the map is
> a Produced Work but it is not as soon as it becomes "significant" (volume
> wise).
> 
> This also means that commercial POI providers cannot show POIs on top of the
> OSM map without their data falling under the Share-A-Like license.

As I read the license and the use cases page, the latter case is clearly a
"collective database".  Commercial POI providers can feel free to use OMS as a
backgroung map without a need to destroy their business.

>From license text http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/:
" 4.5 Limits of Share Alike. The requirements of Section 4.4 do not apply in the
following:

  a. For the avoidance of doubt, You are not required to license Collective
Databases under this License if You incorporate this Database or a Derivative
Database in the collection, but this License still applies to this Database or a
Derivative Database as a part of the Collective Database;

  b. 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;"


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some questions about "Produced Works" under the ODbL

[Frederik Ramm]

Oliver,

Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
> I think the "updatability" is key when distinguishing between Derived and
> Produced Work. 

That concept is completely new and has never been brought up in the 
discussions around ODbL. It might work and it might not. It would be 
good if it worked because that would make the distinction easy ;-) then 
again any distinction based on the pure properties of the work would not 
be able to take the "intent" into account which I explained in my 
previous message.

You can certainly have a derived database that is not updateable (e.g. 
simply drop all IDs). I'm not sure if you can have a produced work that 
is updateable; I cannot come up with something right now.

>> Interesting question: If you did shred the data, would you be allowed to
>> publicly display your Atlas afterwards?
> 
> To my understanding and in line with my concept above it could be treated as
> produced work that is based on non-modified data.
> 
> Otherwise any source data of a produced work would have to be made available
> and I think this is not the intention.

Not sure if I understand correctly. In my example, the atlas was meant 
to be a produced work based on *modified* data, thus I had to give the 
data to you; I assumed that you then destroyed the data which was within 
your rights, but later you decided you wanted to put the produced work 
on display. ODbL 4.3 says:

"if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice 
associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any 
Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise 
exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the 
Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective 
Database, and that it is available under this License."

This sounds as if you would have to "make [everyone] aware that [the 
database] is available under this license" - but in my hypothetical 
situation the database does not exist any more.

The question I was asking is, what happens if a produced work survives 
the data from which it was created - does it then become 
"un-publicly-usable"?

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some questions about "Produced Works" under the ODbL

[Oliver (skobbler)]

>What you're saying, basically, is that making a cake loses the (or some)
>properties of the ingredients, thus a produced work; making a car
>doesn't, thus not produced. (Of course making a car also entails
>irreversible actions but let's ignore that for the moment.)
>
>Transferred back to the map database, your argument would be that
>anything which does not allow one to go back to the data is a produced
work. 

You make a distinction between the result can be (a) fully, (b) partly or
(c) not at all be traced back. I think the key question is if you can update
your work based on updated OSM data. This would be the case for (a) and (b)
and therefore not be a Produced Work rather a Derived Work. I was just
making it black or white. "My cake" was considered to fall into category (c)
- not being traceable - and therefore a Produced Work.

I think the "updatability" is key when distinguishing between Derived and
Produced Work. 

>Interesting question: If you did shred the data, would you be allowed to
>publicly display your Atlas afterwards?

To my understanding and in line with my concept above it could be treated as
produced work that is based on non-modified data.

Otherwise any source data of a produced work would have to be made available
and I think this is not the intention.

Regards,
Oliver
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-questions-about-Produced-Works-under-the-ODbL-tp5080305p5084194.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] some questions about "Produced Works" under the ODbL

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
> Consider a "produced work" of something that cannot be reproduced because
> disassembling is not possible. Take a "cake" for example (kitchen wise, just
> for understanding the concept). You cannot produce a another cake from the
> first cake or alter it because you cannot disassemble it to the original
> ingredients since the ingredients have been transformed in a chemical
> process. The cake would be a Produced Work.
> 
> If you take a car it can always be disassembled to its individual pieces and
> be rebuild. The car would not be a Produced Work.

That is an interesting concept but I think it is misleading.

What you're saying, basically, is that making a cake loses the (or some) 
properties of the ingredients, thus a produced work; making a car 
doesn't, thus not produced. (Of course making a car also entails 
irreversible actions but let's ignore that for the moment.)

Transferred back to the map database, your argument would be that 
anything which does not allow one to go back to the data is a produced work.

However, this is definitely wrong. If I make an excerpt of the full 
database, with no information loss, that's certainly not a produced 
work. But throwing away some bits - for example by simplifying the 
geometries - means that I still have a derived database and not a 
produced work, even though the process is not reversible.

The produced work starts where being a database stops. (And yes I know 
that's not helpful.)

The proposed community guideline talks of "intent". This hints at the 
fact that there may be an overlap; you and I may be producing the exact 
same thing from OSM, but yours may be a produced work and mine not.

For example, I could take the bz2'ed planet file and transform it into a 
57000x57000 pixel true-colour PNG image with the intent of being able to 
reverse engineer that PNG image into the planet file. My image is 
clearly a derived database. Now you might be a crazy artist who wants to 
give an extra touch to some work of yours, and without much thinking you 
take the planet file and slap on an image header and have it displayed. 
The image was not created with the intent of extracting the original 
data, so it is a produced work - even though the process is entirely 
reversible and the original planet file could be created from your image.

On a smaller, and perhaps less unbelievable, scale, someone might create 
a special fine-line map rendering from OSM because he wants to 
laser-etch the stuff. Produced work. Someone else creates the exact same 
fine-line map rendering because he wants to scan it in with his map OCR 
program - derived database.

> Also consider the intention behind the concept: The idea is that if someone
> improves the original source then this improvement should go back to the
> community. 

This is often said but it is my understanding that, as with GPL, any 
improvement you make to the data must only be made available under ODbL 
to those who are in receipt of the produced work made from it. This may 
or may not be "the community"; it would be entirely legal for me to 
improve the data, make a printed atlas, sell you the atlas, hand over 
the improved and ODbL-licensed data to you and say: "This is the only 
copy of the data. I recommend you shred it right away, as this will make 
your atlas unique!"

Interesting question: If you did shred the data, would you be allowed to 
publicly display your Atlas afterwards?

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some questions about "Produced Works" under the ODbL

[Oliver (skobbler)]

>1. Is it clear that a "map tile" is an "image" within the definition of a
"Produced Work"--a work (such as an >image...) resulting from using the
whole or a Substantial part of the Contents?If not, what is the most
>typical example of a Produced Work in the map context?

Consider a "produced work" of something that cannot be reproduced because
disassembling is not possible. Take a "cake" for example (kitchen wise, just
for understanding the concept). You cannot produce a another cake from the
first cake or alter it because you cannot disassemble it to the original
ingredients since the ingredients have been transformed in a chemical
process. The cake would be a Produced Work.

If you take a car it can always be disassembled to its individual pieces and
be rebuild. The car would not be a Produced Work.

Also consider the intention behind the concept: The idea is that if someone
improves the original source then this improvement should go back to the
community. This means if you improve one of the "ingredients" then this
improvement should become part of the community. Any Produced Work will not
benefit the community (for the next Derived or Produced Work) and therefore
does not need to go back to the community. 

Regards,
Oliver
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-questions-about-Produced-Works-under-the-ODbL-tp5080305p5083981.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

[OSM-legal-talk] some questions about "Produced Works" under the ODbL

[David Mirchin]

I apologize for potentially very "newbie" questions as I'm just joining
this list.
 
1. Is it clear that a "map tile" is an "image" within the definition of
a "Produced Work"--a work (such as an image...) resulting from using the
whole or a Substantial part of the Contents?If not, what is the most
typical example of a Produced Work in the map context?
 
2. The definition of "Produced Work" is a work (such as an image or map
tile) resulting from using...a Substantial part of the Contents (via a
...query) from...a Derivative Database."  
 
Does it undermine something being a Produced Work if it results from
using BOTH a Substantial part of the Contents from a Derivative Database
AND some other data or database, such as a Derivative Database, a
proprietary database or user-generated data?  (Of course, it could be
combined with a dozen different sources.)  That is, is the Produced Work
something produced ONLY from the "whole or a Substantial part of the
Contents ...from this Database, a Derivative Database or this Database
as aprt of a Collective Database"?
 
David

David Mirchin, Adv.
bio:  http://www.meitar.com  

Adjunct Lecturer
Internet and e-Commerce Law
Radzyner School of Law
Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 

Herzliya, Israel

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