Given what I know about machine learning (specifically neural networks), it would be hard to argue that the internal data generated by the neural network could be considered a database in the legal sense. This is because the internal data is semantically opaque and incomprehensible to humans and therefore it is not really an *organized* collection of data or information that permits a user to search for and access *individual* pieces of data or information (emphasis on "organized" and "individual").
As for the data that the neural networks spit out, you can certainly argue that this could be the actual derivative database, but I can see people argue that the data is a produced work instead. You probably need the legal advice of IP lawyers who are well-versed in the fields of AI, machine learning, and neural networks. On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:07 PM Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, > > is it a community consensus that, when someone uses OSM to train their > machine learning "black box", the internal data structures built during > learning constitute a derivative database? Or are there people who argue > that somehow the "black box" can ingest OSM data at will and still > remain 100% intellectual property of its operator? > > Further, assuming that we have a system that has ingested OSM by deep > learning and we say that this means its internal database is ODbL, what > would this mean for the output later produced by the same machine? > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
