On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org >> <mailto:r...@robmyers.org>> wrote: >> >> On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >> BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole, >> even if >> it doesn't apply to some individual parts of the database. So >> you're >> wrong that this is an undeniable fact. >> >> Which jurisdiction are we talking here? >> >> I can't think of any jurisdiction where this wouldn't be the case. I'm >> most familiar with US copyright law, however. >> > > Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, OKFN > seem to think it might. I'm erring on the side of caution. If you can > provide any clearer guidance I'd be very grateful. :-) > > > Apologies in advance for inserting a response here - some of the below relates to other posts on this thread (previous and subsequent). The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that copyright doesn't apply to databases, is not correct. Creative Commons (and that includes our Science Commons project) has always been careful to point out that "data" is a broad term and can most certainly include copyrightable content. (We want to encourage others when they speak of "data" to be careful to specify what they mean when they use the term.) Standards of originality are challenging to apply with predicable results. They are subjective to some degree, and they vary between jurisdictions. We have also been careful to point out that databases can certainly be subject to protection under copyright (as distinguished from sui generis protection). Whether and to what extent databases are protected by copyright, once again, differs jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We believe that in most cases users of licensed data and databases will treat them as copyrightable out of an abundance of caution. This is in part because “doing the math” to figure out what is or is not restricted by copyright is uncertain and can be painstaking, which results in high transaction costs. However, in CC licenses, we do not attempt to create, by means of contract, conditions on data or databases that are not based on copyright. In several posts on this thread the suggestion has been made that BY-SA and ODbL are comparable, or that ODbL is just like BY-SA. There are a number of fundamental differences between CC's licenses and ODbL that at least from CC's point of view make the two quite different. CC licenses are licenses, ODbL attempts to create a binding contract; CC licenses do not rely on sui generis database rights and our BY-SA license doesn't have a "provisioning" requirement; CC licenses do not distinguish between a work and a "produced work"; attribution works differently; and CC licenses are clear to apply and impose conditions on content (including data licensed under their terms) only where the public domain and (thereafter) fair dealing and other exceptions and limitations to copyright leave off. There is more, but those differences in aggregate make the two sufficiently different so as to avoid characterization as being generally the same or just alike, at least by many. One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another suggestion earlier on this thread (apologies again for not inserting this comment there) to the effect that CC refuses to acknowledge that CC0 contains a license. On the contrary, we have discussed on numerous occasions why a fall-back license is necessary. This was a key drafting point based on input from many of CC's legal affiliates around the world. In many countries, including the U.S., there is no indisputable, sure mechanism for placing a work in the public domain. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a back-up license that gives essentially the same rights to the public in the event the public domain waiver is not effective for any reason. When we at CC speak of license as opposed to public domain, our focus is on function and practical effect, not formality. Diane Peters
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
