> > On 22 Feb 2008, at 14:14, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the current state of discussion/analysis is that a license like >> ODL would offer sound legal protection only where database law >> exists (e.g. in Europe), while for other jurisdictions (e.g. the US) >> we'd have to rely on the contractual aspect which may be hard because >> the contract doesn't bind third parties to whom the data might be >> passed. How hard exactly it is seems to be a bit murky at the moment. >> >> In this post, I want to focus solely on Europe, i.e. places where >> database law exists. >> >> As far as I understand, database law is a kind of copyright for data >> collections, and it means that if you extract a significant amount of >> data from a database you need permission from the creator of said >> database.
Richard pointed out the remainder of what I would have said correctly, which I excerpted below. I would like to clarify that I think that the only legal restriction that would most likely hold in terms of taking data from a database and creating a new database would be the database right and contract -- copyright is likely not to be a factor. And I'd like to re-iterate that the standard is not "significant" but rather "substantial", which tracks the language of the Database Directive. >> On 22 Feb 2008, at 15:23, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> So as long as I extract non-significant amounts, the data would >> essentially be PD? > > You could use it as such, yes. > > ODC-Database expressly says that it considers a "Derivative Database" > to comprise a "_Substantial_ part of the Data" (my emphasis). That's > whether it's applied via contract, database right or copyright. That > much is unambiguous. > > But you couldn't, of course, recombine it with a large number of other > insubstantial extracts, because then you have made a Substantial > extract. > > On what's substantial and what isn't, for an evaluation under EU > database right, see Charlotte Waelde's oft-cited paper > (http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf) on > pp28-32. Especially the top of page 32: > > "The Directive provides that a lawful user of a database has the right > to extract and/or re-utilise an insubstantial part of the contents. > This is subject to the proviso that any acts by the lawful user must > not conflict with the normal exploitation of the database or > unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the > database. Any contractual provision seeking to override this measure > is null and void." > > Which I think is what I said above, and what ODC-Database reflects. > > Dr Waelde also notes that under EU database right it's not just a > matter of percentage, but also of a "qualitative analysis". To me it > appears clear that a single street name isn't substantial, the whole > of Cambridge is. We could spend hours discussing this but I suspect it > comes down to "don't take the piss". > > cheers > Richard ____ Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net Open Data Commons <http://opendatacommons.org> Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007 _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
