If I remember correctly, at least part of the issue stems from the EU database directive and the sui generis right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive#Sui_generis_right
Copyright protection is not available for databases which aim to be > "complete", that is where the entries are selected by objective criteria: > these are covered by *sui generis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis> > *database rights <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_rights>. While > copyright protects the creativity of an author, database rights > specifically protect the "qualitatively and/or quantitatively [a] > substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or > presentation of the contents": if there has not been substantial investment > (which need not be financial), the database will not be protected > [Art. 7(1)]. Database rights are held in the first instance by the person > or corporation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation> which made the > substantial investment, so long as: > > - the person is a national or domiciliary of a Member State or > > > - the corporation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation> is formed > according to the laws of a Member State and has its registered office or > principal place of business within the European Union. > > Article 11(3) provides for the negotiation of treaties to ensure > reciprocal treatment outside the EU: as of 2006, no such treaty exists. > The holder of database rights may prohibit the extraction and/or > re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part of the contents: the > "substantial part" is evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively and > reutilization is subject to the exhaustion of rights. Public lending is not > an act of extraction or re-utilization. The lawful user of a database which > is available to the public may freely extract and/or re-use insubstantial > parts of the database (Art. 8): the holder of database rights may not place > restrictions of the purpose to which the insubstantial parts are used. > However, users may not "perform acts which conflict with normal > exploitation of the database or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate > interests of the maker of the database", nor prejudice any copyright in the > entries. Basically, even if the data itself is public domain, the database that contains it may be protected under EU law - this is to protect the amount of work that went into the data collection. The whole issue is the definition of a "substantial part" of the database. Are street names a substantial part of the street view data? On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Pieren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Janko Mihelić <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Imagine if Google didn't do that, you would have to find your street > amongst > > billions other Streetview photos. Not possible. So you can't say you > aren't > > using their referencing process. > > If you deduce the street position and shape from their photos into > OSM, you are right. But if it is about checking street signs, the > method how the picture is delivered by Google doesn't change any > thing. The street sign remains in the public domain and is not > copyrightable just because its photo has been referenced (that would > be the same if we could read the signs from aerial imagery). They > could be delivered by other means (e.g. "show me all pictures of > street x, town y"), it's not interfering with the content. Or do you > suggest that any web site referenced by Google becomes its property > because you found it through Google Search and its huge web sites > index ? > Usually, in such discussion coming back and forth, this is the last > argument trying to explain how a public domain material would become > sudenly copyrightable. It's impossible. > > Pieren > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
