On Sun, 11 May 2008, Jeffrey Martin wrote: > I did not read the link to the judgment, but the article seems to > say there were show descriptions that were copied. This goes > beyond copying a fact like the name of a TV show or the name > of a street. > No descriptions were copied in the arguments presented. the data was the time and name of program allegedly originally gained by watching television constantly over 3 weeks but according to the judgement was a copy of a licenced copy of an original work which represented 'substantial skill and labour" by the original authors at the TV channel (anyone who has ever watched this channel might disagree with this claim) and that these copies were a substantial part of the electronic TV guide subsequently prepared. I'm not a big watcher of television, but I'm very sure that some programs have been broadcast at the same time every weekday for around 30 years, so at this rate the program guide will no longer be copyright in another 20 or so.
> I agree that having specific laws is the best way to avoid > going before a judge. > > If I were a city that sold mapping data and felt that OSM > was in competition, I might argue that the town street > grid was a copyrighted work and that by driving around > with your gps you are making an unauthorized copy. > > How does fair use work in Australia? If I take a picture > of you in front of the Sydney Opera House what do > I own? I could argue that the picture is of you and > the inclusion of the Opera House is fair. If I take a picture > of the Sydney Opera House itself then can I sell copies > of that picture without permission? You can take the picture of the opera house and sell it, but I can prevent you from using my image in a picture for sale. > -- _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
