Re: [talk-au] Copyright in Australia (Was: Tagging questions)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 13/02/2008 10:05:26 AM: The Australian situation seems to be unique - a combination of some unique, potentially restrictive, copyright rulings, coupled with massive area and large numbers of seldom travelled tracks with no street signs leaves those of us trying to map the rural areas in a bit of a bind. (To continue our academic discussion!) I don't think the copyright situation is more restrictive in Australia than in the UK. The UK has much the same copyright law, many of the same precedents, and in addition to this explicitly recognises a database right in their copyright legislation. It could be argued that even if using a street directory for a list of names was legal in Australia, the servers being located in the UK may breach UK law. Now in the US, of course, there is no database right, no copyright on database on facts. --- If you are interested in this stuff, have a read of the IceTV judgement at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/1172.html The IceTV case concerned the production of a TV guide to rival the Channel Nine produced one. IceTV won that case, and Channel Nine were relying heavily on Desktop Marketing v Telstra as the basis for their arguments. There are some parallels with OSM. Copyright was held to subsist in the Channel Nine TV guide - the substantial effort involved etc. IceTV generated their own guide, initally by watching TV for a month straight and recording all the programs the torture period - as it is called in the case. Subsequently, they made amendments by consulting the yahoo TV guide, amoungst other things, looking for changes to the weekly schedule. The amending of the IceTV guide based on this was not held to be an infringement of Nine's copyright in the original guide (even though their copyright did subsist in the aggregated guide released by yahoo). The somewhat unhelpful conclusion reached, was that each case turns on its own facts, and has to be tested by the nature and extent of what was copied. -- Next time you are driving across that remote forest road, consider how lucky you are to be working on OSM rather than the Open TV Guide project. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Copyright in Australia (Was: Tagging questions)
Any company would have to produce evidence that you had actually copied from their database - just having a list of streets identical to another is no proof that you copied it, rather than sourcing it from the physical world. That's why Sensis persist in having errors in their database - purely to catch anyone doing wholesale copying without verifying against the real world, to identify the fake streets. Mike R ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Copyright in Australia (Was: Tagging questions)
I don't really understand why you guys are wanting so much to get a free ride. The really important thing about OSM is to create a map that we can be sure does not infringe anyone else's copyright. It really doesn't matter how long that takes. In my mind, if there's the slightest doubt about any particular source then it should discounted out of hand. If people have to visit every single street on the planet, then so be it - that's the fun part of the project anyway. 80n On Feb 11, 2008 9:29 PM, Ian Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I reckon the multi source approach should also be valid for street name sourcing - that way you aren't relying on a single companies *substantial effort* required be careful here. if copyright subsists, because of substantial effort, then copyright subsists. you can't argue that copyright doesn't subsist for a work used in one way, but does for a work used in another. once copyright is shown to subsist, it only then matters whether you are using within the bounds of what is permitted for a copyrighted work. it is likely copyright subsists in a street directory list of street names. the only question then is what amounts to permitted use under the copyright provisions. Is looking up a street directory by multiple people to confirm an address before travelling there fair use? It is easy to argue in favour of this. The street directory was intended for this purpose. Is looking up a street directory to validate a competing street directory, rather than paying for or otherwise putting effort into verifying the source? I wouldn't like to be in court arguing that case.. Also - don't forget there are contractual terms of use in google maps, etc which prohibit this. This really only leaves a couple of sources of this street name data. (in Australia, and apparently only Australia, we have to wear the consequences of the DtMS v Telstra judgement which in essence says that factual items can be copyrighted in a substantial effort was required to collate and present them). The court in Desktop Marketing v Telstra, certainly believed they were disregarding US precedent, and following UK precedent. The issue will probably never be argued in a UK court, because they have strong protections in the form of a database right legislation, and will likely never have to rely on copyright to protect factual information. I would strongly suggest not referring to a copyrighted work when working on OSM. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
