On 11/18/2010 06:46 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Rob Myers<r...@...> writes:
The point is this. The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence
in the work.
Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot.
Yes - but the licence does cover copyright in the particular work that you
received (in this case a printed map, say). That is what I want to establish.
And it covers all of the copyright for that particular work, not just a subset
so that you're granted a licence to the pictures but not the words.
The example that springs to mind is if I write a BY-(SA) review of a
story or a poem and I include quotes from the work I am reviewing under
fair use or fair dealing.
I am fairly certain that I am not giving people who receive my BY-SA
review a BY-SA licence to the quotes that are contained in it.
It doesn't, obviously, cover anything not contained in that work.
So it couldn't possibly include the exact tags used in a landuse=brownfield
area - just the shape of the area and the fact that it is brown.
Yes that makes sense.
If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's
exactly the same situation. The original OS master database is copyrighted.
It is not, as with the OS data the licence on the database is expected
to apply directly to derived works.
Could you clarify what you mean here? The OpenData release does not include
any access to the original database. I have never seen the OS's master database
or the terms under which it is licensed; as far as I am concerned the Street
View tiles are just some image files released under a permissive licence.
If I trace from them and make a derived work, I need to stay within the licence
granted - but I need not care at all what the terms are of the original DB.
Sure, my point was that the licence and the copyright relationship to
the derived work are direct: the BY-style licence applies to your use of
the OS data and to work produced using it rather than having the
mothership/lander relationship of the ODbL and a BY-SA produced work.
But the ODbL isn't about some platonic idea of a map, this is about the
precise structure and numbers in the database.
Ah, no I don't mean the precise numbers, obviously it would be a practical
impossibility to recreate the exact database and if somebody did that you
would suspect that they had been peeking at the original DB all along.
I just mean the subset of the information that is recoverable from the tiles.
Ah, this is where I think I misunderstood what you are saying.
I don't think that what you refer to here as a subset of the information
would count as a Derivative Database as it wouldn't reproduce (part of)
the content of the original database.
This would depend on the accuracy and structure of what is "recovered",
I think.
But I will check odc-discuss and ask about this.
If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived
work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the
copyright holder of that printed map. On the other hand, if I had a licence
(from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute
them under certain terms, I would be able to do that.
And if the proprietary licence said "you can do what you like with
derivatives but you cannot do what you like with the original", how
would that be different from the ODbL?
Perhaps it wouldn't be different, but that is not what happens here.
You don't receive the map tiles under ODbL. You receive them under CC-BY,
shall we say, without additional restrictions. If that is the case, then
you can make derivatives such as tracing and distribute them under the
licence terms you received.
You do not receive the tiles with any extra restrictions with an ODbL
produced work either. If the ODbL attempted to impose them that would
clash with BY. What you receive in the attribution for the BY work is a
"source offer" that does not, in itself, affect your ability to use the
BY work.
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
map you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you
cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and
if you do things with just the extract you received then you are covered by
the licence you received with that extract.
Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion
of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally
recreated in this scenario?
I am only referring to tracing from the map tiles themselves. Perhaps you
are right that it would be practically impossible to recreate the original
database from that - in which case we come to the same conclusion, albeit
from different premises: that the tiles can be distributed under CC-BY without
additional riders, and people can freely trace over them to make their own
CC-BY licensed map. (As long as they don't cheat by looking at the source
data!)
Yes I think we probably do end up in the same place on this. :-)
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
