Rob Myers <r...@...> writes: >>The point is this. The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence >>in the work.
>Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot. Yes - but the licence does cover copyright in the particular work that you received (in this case a printed map, say). That is what I want to establish. And it covers all of the copyright for that particular work, not just a subset so that you're granted a licence to the pictures but not the words. It doesn't, obviously, cover anything not contained in that work. So it couldn't possibly include the exact tags used in a landuse=brownfield area - just the shape of the area and the fact that it is brown. >>If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's >>exactly the same situation. The original OS master database is copyrighted. > >It is not, as with the OS data the licence on the database is expected >to apply directly to derived works. Could you clarify what you mean here? The OpenData release does not include any access to the original database. I have never seen the OS's master database or the terms under which it is licensed; as far as I am concerned the Street View tiles are just some image files released under a permissive licence. If I trace from them and make a derived work, I need to stay within the licence granted - but I need not care at all what the terms are of the original DB. >But the ODbL isn't about some platonic idea of a map, this is about the >precise structure and numbers in the database. Ah, no I don't mean the precise numbers, obviously it would be a practical impossibility to recreate the exact database and if somebody did that you would suspect that they had been peeking at the original DB all along. I just mean the subset of the information that is recoverable from the tiles. >>If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived >>work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the >>copyright holder of that printed map. On the other hand, if I had a licence >>(from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute >>them under certain terms, I would be able to do that. > >And if the proprietary licence said "you can do what you like with >derivatives but you cannot do what you like with the original", how >would that be different from the ODbL? Perhaps it wouldn't be different, but that is not what happens here. You don't receive the map tiles under ODbL. You receive them under CC-BY, shall we say, without additional restrictions. If that is the case, then you can make derivatives such as tracing and distribute them under the licence terms you received. >>Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original >>data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of >>map you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you >>cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and >>if you do things with just the extract you received then you are covered by >>the licence you received with that extract. > >Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion >of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally >recreated in this scenario? I am only referring to tracing from the map tiles themselves. Perhaps you are right that it would be practically impossible to recreate the original database from that - in which case we come to the same conclusion, albeit from different premises: that the tiles can be distributed under CC-BY without additional riders, and people can freely trace over them to make their own CC-BY licensed map. (As long as they don't cheat by looking at the source data!) -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
