On 8 September 2010 02:26, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
does this count, given that the contract (CT) is British law?
Yes. If the intellectual property exists because of the Australian
Copyright Act 1968, then any transfer of that property would have to
comply with the formalities of the 1968
On 7 September 2010 22:59, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other
gives them that.
I got far enough
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2010 02:26, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Probably depends what court you sue in.
It shouldn't matter _where_ you sue. In principle at least the court
seized of the matter should apply the usual principles of
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
And then the ODbL says you can do certain things provided you meet
certain conditions?
Yes. DB right covers the whole
Maybe. OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
I think that it's the same with OSM: DbCL ensures that OSM can apply ODbL to
the result of combining all the individual
On 09/07/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
Maybe. OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably have
a pretty tough time claiming that it is the maker of the database.
They are the maker of the current database.
, and copyright may cover the DB or the aggregated contents.
Yes,
On 7 September 2010 16:13, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
I think that it's the same with OSM: DbCL ensures that OSM can
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
If its the case that OSMF doesn't have a database right in the
contents of its database, then, logically, that right would be jointly
owned by all contributors.
Ah, I see there is a provision for this in the EU database
2010/9/7 ed...@billiau.net:
I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to
discover that this won't extend to Australia.
does this count, given that the contract (CT) is British law?
cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/7 ed...@billiau.net:
I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to
discover that this won't extend to Australia.
does this count, given that the contract (CT) is British law?
On 7 September 2010 16:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Ah, I see there is a provision for this in the EU database right: In
respect of a database created by a group of natural persons jointly,
the exclusive rights shall be owned jointly.
Yes, that's what I was alluding to. If there were no
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/07/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
Maybe. OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably have
a pretty tough time claiming that it is the maker of the database.
They are the maker of the current database.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 September 2010 16:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, if a joint database right works like joint copyright, it's
fairly useless. Any joint owner of the database right would have full
sub-licensable rights to
On 09/07/2010 05:15 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/07/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
Maybe. OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably have
a pretty tough time claiming that it is the maker of the database.
They are
2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other
gives them that.
I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it?
Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL
is better than ODbL.
OSM ways aren't generally representations of artistic works, though.
On 09/04/2010 03:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it?
Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL
is better than ODbL.
It would make contributions DbCL.
On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 02:58 PM, Anthony wrote:]
Unless you're
talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
database, anyway.
See thread title. ;-)
Okay...Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.
The answer from ODC seems to be that
On 09/03/2010 03:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.
That's a different question, to which the answer is no.
On 09/03/2010 03:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
But it means, in
non-database-rights jurisdictions, that the extracted data isn't ODbL
either (unless you were dumb enough to agree to the ODbL, anyway).
It does not mean that at all. If the extracted data is Substantial
enough to be covered by copyright
On 09/03/2010 03:04 PM, Anthony wrote:
Also complicating matters is that the individual data are released
under DbCL. It's not really clear what that means in a jurisdiction
which doesn't have a database right,
The rights on the database are not the same as the rights on the
contents of the
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The rights on the database are not the same as the rights on the contents of
the database. That's why the DbCL exists.
but it's hard to see how you can
protect an unordered (or trivially
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
But the extract is not the database. It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.
Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a*
On 09/03/2010 05:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
But the extract is not the database. It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.
Then if it contains a
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.
Agreed. All I'm saying is that ODbL appears to be equivalent to BY-SA
in this sense, not that it covers less (though, the DbCL stuff might,
see my next
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
AFAICT the DbCL reduces the effective copyright level of the contents of the
database to that of facts.
It's a great answer by Jordan Hatcher. It rests on the assumption
that OSM consists solely of factual data (or, at
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:). Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.
The ODbL itself does not draw a clear line between Covered Database and
Produced Work. A common definition
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:). Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.
The ODbL itself does not draw
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Then again a PNG that
simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a
database as far as we're concerned.
Why would it matter?
I think it is meant as an added safeguard against reverse engineering.
ODbL already says that if you extract the
If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.
See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.
LOL, I hope you go with that definition.
Actually, I liked an
On 09/03/2010 02:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
And the provisions of CC-BY-SA would apply as well.
To any BY-SA licenced work, yes.
Unless you're
talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
database, anyway.
See thread title. ;-)
Which will be interesting when someone
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without clashing. And
the user knows this
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-August/000291.html
My understanding of the answer is that the data isn't what you are
licencing under BY-SA. You are licencing the originality/creativity
involved in making the produced work.
This depends on some
36 matches
Mail list logo
