On 11/18/2010 04:42 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Rob Myers<r...@...> writes:
Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY
or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'.
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced work,
for example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a Lady
Gaga song then record that, the work that you have "reverse engineered"
still breaks copyright despite the fact that you have used a CC licenced
work to make it.
Uh... which would, in my way of thinking, mean that it is impossible to
produce a CC-licensed score and lyrics of a Lady Gaga song. You can make an
It means that we cannot use (...are still not allowed to use) a
CC-licenced work to make an infringing work.
'all rights reserved' version, by agreement with the record company, but you
cannot release a CC or public domain version. Similarly, you cannot release
a CC or public domain set of map tiles from an ODbL map. Perhaps this is just
a difference in terminology.
We can produce a CC licenced set of map tiles from ODbL data. But we
cannot use those to make a Lady Gaga score or the original ODbL
database. If we do, the original rights still apply to the recreated
work. CC licencing is not a way of circumventing that.
What would prevent us from using an ARR map tile to magically recreate
the original ODbL database?
Systematically extracting data out of Produced Works to recreate the whole
database, or a substantial part of it, would trigger the Share Alike
obligation.
Myself, I don't see how this can be enforceable;
It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your
friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back
together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not the
copyright on it hasn't magically vanished.
Right. But if the music publisher had given permission (perhaps by some
tortuously worded licence document) to release those short clips under CC-BY
then you would be within your rights to put them together into a longer work.
Sure but there's no equivalent to the original database in that example.
If we look at the licencing of "My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts", which
licenced individual track elements CC but not the original compiled
work, that's probably closer.
You would not imagine the record company saying on the one hand 'yes, you can
make short clips of our music and release them as CC-BY' but on the other hand
'no, if you try to exercise the rights granted by the CC-BY licence you are
infringing our copyright and must stop'. Either position is possible, but not
both together.
And do look at Jordan's "Secret Sauce" explanation again.
He explained that 'I see the data layer as being potentially different from the
rest of what is being licensed CC-BY-SA in a "produced work"'.
>
However this doesn't really square with your assertion that it's a question of
copyright (rather than some effect of contract law or 'agreeing' to the ODbL).
The CC-BY-SA licence explicitly grants a copyright licence, so if there is any
copyright interest in the printed map produced, it is licensed by those terms.
Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an
entirely separate issue. Which does not interact with your use of the CC
licenced work, and is also not in any way circumventable using the CC
licenced work.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
