Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

It's almost impossible to quit this list, we're very inclusive. Or maybe not, just like any other mailing list, there are some links at the bottom of each email. One of them has listinfo in the url. Click on it and you'll get magically redirected to a web page where you can unsubscribe. Cheers,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

If someone could remove me from the email list that would be great. Could not find an unsub button. Many thanks James Sent from my iPhone > On 14 Mar 2016, at 15:20, Tom Lee wrote: > > I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions. > > First, the EU

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions. First, the EU Database Right and copyright are related but distinct. One or both can apply to a work. From the ODbL: "Database Rights can apply even when there is no copyright over the Database." German copyright's notion of "fading"

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

sent from a phone > Am 13.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb Tobias Wendorff > : > > "If the published result of your project is intended for the extraction > of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work." shouldn't this go further and include

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:24 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > what other things besides maps can be produced from our db? Not many (yes, > you. could make "lists", but they're DBs as well). In the end, something > like a carpet or a tshirt or a bag are just objects to apply a map on. > FWIW, our

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:18 schrieb Simon Poole: > > http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline > > Which covers what Christoph has already pointed out, I'm not sure why we > would want to differentiate between maps and other produced works as you >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

sent from a phone > Am 13.03.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Tobias Wendorff > : > > I'm seeing a problem in the formulation: it might be not correct to call > a map a "produced work" anymore. what other things besides maps can be produced from our db? Not many (yes,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

Am 13.03.2016 um 12:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > I totally understand your expaination and I often used the same words > to describe ODbL. But the OSMF should release a notification to clearly > state the difference between other produced works (like artwork based > on OpenStreetMap) and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

Am So, 13.03.2016, 12:39 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > I believe it has always been clear that the information stored in a map > was a kind of database by arrangement and selection, e.g. you can't take a > OSM based printed map that was released under cc0 and derive the contained > information

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

sent from a phone > Am 13.03.2016 um 11:39 schrieb Tobias Wendorff > : > > There needs to be a revision of the ODbL to cleary state, what's a > printed map. From the legal site, it's not a "produced work" by the > old meaning anymore. I believe it has always

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

Hi Christoph, Am So, 13.03.2016, 12:18 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Sunday 13 March 2016, Tobias Wendorff wrote: > > I don't think there has ever been any serious doubt that printed maps > can be databases. What? There has been a lot of discussions about this in the last years. Do you have

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

On Sunday 13 March 2016, Tobias Wendorff wrote: > > I don't know, if this thematic has already been discussed on this > list, but European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed the > classification as a database for (printed) topographic maps (see EuZW > 2015, 955). Yet the commentaries can't