Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
On 14 February 2010 20:32, John Smith wrote: > http://www.smartcompany.com.au/intellectual-property/20100212-sensis-loses-case-to-protect-copyright-of-yellow-pages-and-white-pages.html >From the webpage: Dolphin says the key for database companies is to add some sort of "creative spark" or point of difference if they want to protect their database. In the IceTV case, that creative spark involved adding a few lines of commentary to television listings. "The creative spark was having paid a bunch of students to sit on the couch, watch the television and record what was on." "It might only be three lines, but you're off and racing." ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
This finally made it to slashdot.org today: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/14/0857256/Australian-Judge-Rules-Facts-Cannot-Be-Copyrighted?from=rss Complete with some discussions on what this may mean for various data sets: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/44.html http://www.dilanchian.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=601:telstra-loses-as-copyright-blowback-continues&catid=23:ip&Itemid=114 http://www.smartcompany.com.au/intellectual-property/20100212-sensis-loses-case-to-protect-copyright-of-yellow-pages-and-white-pages.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
On 11 February 2010 21:19, James Livingston wrote: > My non-lawyerly understanding of the IceTV case was that most of the argument > was around whether the they used a substantial portion of the database (e.g. > structure) not the facts themselves. I'll have to re-read the IceTV ruling, but the same can't be said for the white/yellow pages ruling, clearly the parties involved do plan to copy most if not all the facts into their own publications. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
On 11/02/2010, at 5:33 AM, Liz wrote: > Haven't got far through the judgement so far but this sounds quite clear. > 7. > The Copyright Act does not protect facts, ideas or information contained in a > work, to ensure a balance is struck between the interests of authors and > those > in society: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [28] and the cases cited > therein. The Copyright Act does not provide protection for skill and labour > alone: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [49], [52], [54] and [131]. > and 8. > The Copyright Act protects the particular form of expression of the > information: > (but not if it is computer generated, it must have an author) The other thing to remember is that in Australia, a database can have inherent copyright rights independent of the copyright rights of the contents. That is in the same way as EU database rights are independent of the copyright right of the contents, but our database copyright stuff is nothing like the EU database rights in how it works. My non-lawyerly understanding of the IceTV case was that most of the argument was around whether the they used a substantial portion of the database (e.g. structure) not the facts themselves. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
> On 11 February 2010 14:19, David Murn wrote: >> Doesnt all content have an identifiable author, or at least copyright >> holder? Unless its computer generated that is. > > The copyright holder isn't always the author, although in the case of > Channel 9/Telstra they should have auditing systems in place to be > able to identify the authors, but again they wouldn't be the copyright > holder. Although if they couldn't identify the employees who updated > what I guess they don't. > just on this point Telstra could not identify the authors Most was computer generated Alterations were done by contractors not employees and Her Honour decided that there was neither author nor authors as there was no collaboration between them entries had to conform to rigid formulae (the Rules) Verification was done to confirm that the Rules were intact, and rigid Rules are the antithesis of intellectual input and creativity. No-one knew who had written the Rules either. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
On 11 February 2010 14:19, David Murn wrote: > Doesnt all content have an identifiable author, or at least copyright > holder? Unless its computer generated that is. The copyright holder isn't always the author, although in the case of Channel 9/Telstra they should have auditing systems in place to be able to identify the authors, but again they wouldn't be the copyright holder. Although if they couldn't identify the employees who updated what I guess they don't. In any case I never mentioned anything about this point. > So how is this 'meta information' any different to 'fact'? The meta > information might say a road has an incline or a service station sells > e10, but just because that is entered in by OSM users, it doesnt change > it from being fact to being a creative work. The creative aspect comes from deciding what tags to use, and mapping slightly differently from the next person, as I said before the facts/vector data probably isn't protected, but the meta data requires some thought/creativity to figure out how to tag things, especially non-common things. > Does this mean we'll likely be seeing many more mass imports from > people, now that the legal issues are fuzzy? Doesnt this go against the > whole principle of OSM, being that its completely free of any possible > restrictions? Unlikely, the white/yellow pages in the US and other jurisdictions haven't had copyright on them for some time, that is only half the problem the next problem is getting access to suitable sources of data and to do so you may be under contract rather than relying on copyright laws to protect the information. Take for example the national toilet database: http://data.australia.gov.au/610 To download it you need to agree to a shrink wrap license that states some very controdicting things: Permitted Purpose means the right to: 1. (a) use, adapt, reproduce, publish and communicate to the public the Database in any format (including any part of the Database); and 2. (b) design and build, or have designed and built on your behalf, any Derivative Products. 3.2 You may not sublicense your rights under these Terms to any person. If you require another person to access the Database for the Permitted Purpose (including a person you engage to design or build a Derivative Product on your behalf), that person must obtain a copy of the Database from the data.australia.gov.au website and comply with the Terms of this licence. 7.1 You must ensure that if and when you make any Derivative Product available to third parties that you do so on terms that ensure users they understand that we do not guarantee, and accept no risk in respect of, the accuracy, currency or completeness of the Derivative Product. Does that mean we can create a derived data set for OSM and then import it? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 09:45 +1000, John Smith wrote: > The majority of all OSM data has identifiable authors. Doesnt all content have an identifiable author, or at least copyright holder? Unless its computer generated that is. > Also there is debate over the creativity, the vector information may > not be protected but meta information may be deemed a creative work, > and without a court case it's merely speculation. So how is this 'meta information' any different to 'fact'? The meta information might say a road has an incline or a service station sells e10, but just because that is entered in by OSM users, it doesnt change it from being fact to being a creative work. Does this mean we'll likely be seeing many more mass imports from people, now that the legal issues are fuzzy? Doesnt this go against the whole principle of OSM, being that its completely free of any possible restrictions? David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
> On 11 February 2010 05:33, Liz wrote: >> Haven't got far through the judgement so far but this sounds quite >> clear. >> 7. >> The Copyright Act does not protect facts, ideas or information contained >> in a >> work, to ensure a balance is struck between the interests of authors and >> those >> in society: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [28] and the cases cited >> therein. The Copyright Act does not provide protection for skill and >> labour >> alone: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [49], [52], [54] and [131]. >> and 8. >> The Copyright Act protects the particular form of expression of the >> information: >> (but not if it is computer generated, it must have an author) > > The majority of all OSM data has identifiable authors. > > Also there is debate over the creativity, the vector information may > not be protected but meta information may be deemed a creative work, > and without a court case it's merely speculation. > > In any case Australia is just late to the game, these sorts of > decicions have already been made in other jurisdictions and this is > exactly the reason why some want ODBL. > The judge suggested that database protection laws should be considered by Parliament. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
On 11 February 2010 05:33, Liz wrote: > Haven't got far through the judgement so far but this sounds quite clear. > 7. > The Copyright Act does not protect facts, ideas or information contained in a > work, to ensure a balance is struck between the interests of authors and those > in society: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [28] and the cases cited > therein. The Copyright Act does not provide protection for skill and labour > alone: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [49], [52], [54] and [131]. > and 8. > The Copyright Act protects the particular form of expression of the > information: > (but not if it is computer generated, it must have an author) The majority of all OSM data has identifiable authors. Also there is debate over the creativity, the vector information may not be protected but meta information may be deemed a creative work, and without a court case it's merely speculation. In any case Australia is just late to the game, these sorts of decicions have already been made in other jurisdictions and this is exactly the reason why some want ODBL. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, David Murn wrote: > On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 00:20 +1100, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM, John Smith wrote: > > > On 9 February 2010 10:37, David Murn wrote: > > > > > > Except copyright law in Australia since the IceTV ruling is unlikely > > > to cover simple databases of fact. > > > > Just to reinforce this point, a case concluded today asserted that > > Telstra/Sensis no longer have copyright for the Yellow and White Pages > > Databases specifically in light of IceTV. There had been a previous > > case involving those datasets concerning a company called Desktop > > Marketing Systems (no prizes for guessing why they would like to rip > > off phone books) that had subsisted for several years with the view > > that copying the whole phonebook (even when presented in a different > > form) was copyright infringement. > > Based on this same argument, could someone grab the OSM data files, > change a couple of tag names and legally be able to sell it as their own > product with their own (now seemingly useless) copyright on it? After > all, every single piece of OSM is technically a matter of fact, not > creative ability or anything else. > > Just curious what floodgates this decision could open, both good and > bad. > Haven't got far through the judgement so far but this sounds quite clear. 7. The Copyright Act does not protect facts, ideas or information contained in a work, to ensure a balance is struck between the interests of authors and those in society: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [28] and the cases cited therein. The Copyright Act does not provide protection for skill and labour alone: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [49], [52], [54] and [131]. and 8. The Copyright Act protects the particular form of expression of the information: (but not if it is computer generated, it must have an author) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] repurcussions of IceTV decision
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 00:20 +1100, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM, John Smith wrote: > > On 9 February 2010 10:37, David Murn wrote: > > Except copyright law in Australia since the IceTV ruling is unlikely > > to cover simple databases of fact. > > Just to reinforce this point, a case concluded today asserted that > Telstra/Sensis no longer have copyright for the Yellow and White Pages > Databases specifically in light of IceTV. There had been a previous > case involving those datasets concerning a company called Desktop > Marketing Systems (no prizes for guessing why they would like to rip > off phone books) that had subsisted for several years with the view > that copying the whole phonebook (even when presented in a different > form) was copyright infringement. Based on this same argument, could someone grab the OSM data files, change a couple of tag names and legally be able to sell it as their own product with their own (now seemingly useless) copyright on it? After all, every single piece of OSM is technically a matter of fact, not creative ability or anything else. Just curious what floodgates this decision could open, both good and bad. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
