Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents (was: Best license for future tiles?)
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's content. Database definition as per the ODbL (definition modelled on EU Database Directive 96/9/EC): “Database” – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License. That would apply to anything created from OSM, wouldn't it? Even a printed map is certainly arranged in a systematic and methodical way. Anything substantial is governed by the ODbL otherwise DbCL. See the guideline on substantial here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline Thanks, this is something concrete. Less than 100 features - you're in the clear. More than that (with some exceptions) - considered substantial and must be produced under ODbL. I still don't quite get what the 'contents' are, though, and how some 'contents' can ever be considered in isolation from the 'database' that holds them. Even if you extract only half a square mile of the map you still have a database, albeit a smaller one. Even if you only want a list of all coffee shops you still have a database. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Rob Myers r...@... writes: I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database' versus 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in particular. Imagine a database of names, song titles, photographs, recipes, poems or credit card numbers. Yes, this makes perfect sense. What seems nonsensical is taking that and trying to apply it to the quite different world of geodata, maps and OSM. What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we regard points, ways, uploads or any other unit as the content of the database. The content of the database is any pieces of data smaller than the entire database. Anything - so a planet dump of Germany is the 'content'? Or if that is too much, what about a smaller extract the size of your neighbourhood? I don't want to say that just because the boundary is fuzzy the concept must be unworkable. Real life and the law deal with fuzzy boundaries all the time. But to me it seems not merely fuzzy, but nonexistent. The thing is that an individual piece of data is entirely meaningless by itself - whereas you can take a photograph out of Wikipedia and use just that photo, it makes no sense to extract 'a point', 'a way' or even 'a tag' from OSM. The only unit that makes sense to use is a partial extract of the whole thing - complete with ways, points and tags - which then is clearly a 'database' and not mere 'contents'. Or if it is 'contents' then equally the entirety of OSM taken as a whole must be considered 'contents'. If we wanted to, we could produce an explanatory text which would accompany the licence terms and explain with examples what the OSM project considers to be its database and what we think of as contents. But that doesn't mean the distinction exists in law or would be understood by a court. It would just be on the level of social convention and a request for people to follow the spirit of the licence as well as the letter. Which is fine - I'm all in favour of that - but it makes all the elaborate legal gymnastics seem a bit pointless. Any complexity in this is a product of the law not the licence... I don't think it is a case of the law being complex, but rather of trying to invent new constructs that don't correspond to the law at all, or indeed to common sense. (The example of a collection of recordings or photographs is fine, but that's not what we are dealing with.) That is why things become foggy. Indeed, using something that is so novel and untested as ODbL to license OSM's work is foolish. Especially given that copyright as applied to maps is well established and have been in use for a couple of hundred years. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 11:33, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, using something that is so novel and untested as ODbL to license OSM's work is foolish. Especially given that copyright as applied to maps is well established and have been in use for a couple of hundred years. Dear Etienne, you are correct that copyrights are applied to maps for centuries and I expect it to continue for the coming centuries. On the topic of vectorial database, I believe that we will start seeing more and more people to move towards licenses which are protecting databases like what is happening with Paris (they are choosing ODbL, and they have a large legal team). I suspect as database law usage is expanding, we will see more and more moves towards licence like CC0, ODbL, ODb-BY, etc . Recently, someone from Creative Common posted that they are closely looking at the debate to see how they could improve their licensing to take into account databases. People don't spend time inventing new licences for the sake of it; it corresponds to the need of adapting to a changing legal environment. If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright protection since 1997 due to the introduction of the European database law ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/UK_Database_Law for more information). You can argue that the database containing map data is different from some yellow pages database. I disagree with that statement. I believe that a database (as defined by the link above) of geographical information is not different than a database of information. ODbL may be untested, but so is CC-BY-SA, and so was the GPL until some time ago. The point is that you have to choose what gives you the strongest legal footing in the end, as they are all untested. Amusingly enough, I don't know of any map providers using copyrights to protect their data. Emily Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@... writes: Amusingly enough, I don't know of any map providers using copyrights to protect their data. All map providers use copyright to protect their data. Look at any map online or offline and you will see a copyright notice, for example Map data (c) 2010 Europa Technologies, Google, PPWK, Tele Atlas Perhaps you mean that they don't use only copyright but also assert every right that they possibly can, including database rights. This is quite true. Usually a company's legal team will advise them to grab everything, and even to add additional restrictions not backed by any law. (Even if they are struck down in court, you're still no worse off than if you hadn't given it a try.) Certainly the database right exists in some countries and we need to license it. That doesn't of itself justify trying to export it to countries which have (wisely in my opinion) decided not to enact such a right. As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them into another format that you then publish. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them into another format that you then publish. Here is some data: node id=915100779 lat=51.5798222 lon=-0.3341762 version=2 changeset=6058195 user=Walter Schlögl uid=78656 visible=true timestamp=2010-10-16T14:40:13Z tag k=name v=McDonald's/ tag k=amenity v=fast_food/ tag k=cuisine v=burger/ /node The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed for factual information. Creativity is used in the above data. Whereas on the rendered map http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create the halo around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik stylesheet. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 13:23, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them into another format that you then publish. Here is some data: node id=915100779 lat=51.5798222 lon=-0.3341762 version=2 changeset=6058195 user=Walter Schlögl uid=78656 visible=true timestamp=2010-10-16T14:40:13Z tag k=name v=McDonald's/ tag k=amenity v=fast_food/ tag k=cuisine v=burger/ /node The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed for factual information. Creativity is used in the above data. Typo, creativity is *NOT* used in the above data. Whereas on the rendered map http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create the halo around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik stylesheet. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or the data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them into another format that you then publish. See that's where you are confusing maps representation and the underlying data. If I was to start a large scale photocopying of some commercial maps, I would infringe copyrights of the printed map. This doesn't infringe on any possible underlying rights since you are stopping at the map itself. This doesn't imply anything on the underlying data. You are voluntarily confusing the topic and this argument is definitely not a valid one. Whether you think it is wise or not that countries are passing database laws, they are becoming a reality and more and more countries are adopting them. Should we ignore reality in the end? While it may be comforting to be think that we are protected by the current licence and enough community pressure, there will always be a time when a company will ignore that. In terms of debate, there are three major sides: PD people (and to some extent attribution people), SA people, people who don't care as long as the data is open and free. The reaction of the three sides would be interesting if a company would violate the current licence. Since we are here, can I ask you two questions on pure licensing? The answer needs to be short else, it will be drowned in words to hide the true belief you have. 1) In which camp are you? 2) Do you believe that CC-BY-SA would protect the project legally? To be strictly fair, I will answer to the questions first. 1) I am in the camp of those who don't care as long as the data is open and free. (You can see my reasons on the wiki page when I ran for the foundation). 2) I don't believe that CC-BY-SA would protect the project legally Regarding 1), I am pragmatist, and people initially have chosen a share alike licence and therefore it would be very difficult to switch to a PD or an attribution licence. In any case, I don't particularly care but I will respect the spirit of the initial licence (i.e. SA). Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 12:46, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright protection since 1997 due to the introduction of the European database law ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/UK_Database_Law for more information). Not quite. A database may attract either database right, copyright or both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right) is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold across Europe (own intellectual creation). Whether something is, or is not, a database for either purpose is a relatively straightforward question and is without prejudice to whether or not it might be derivable (or derived from) some other kind of work. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 14:14, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Here is some data: node id=915100779 lat=51.5798222 lon=-0.3341762 version=2 changeset=6058195 user=Walter Schlögl uid=78656 visible=true timestamp=2010-10-16T14:40:13Z tag k=name v=McDonald's/ tag k=amenity v=fast_food/ tag k=cuisine v=burger/ /node The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact, along with the other details. If you think the position of this restaurant is a fact then you really need to watch the Horizon documentary where Alan Davis tries to measure the length of a piece of string: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00574dv Hehe, I'll remember that next time I ask for a pint of beer; after all I could be missing at least 0.261485 millilitres. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright protection since 1997 Not quite. A database may attract either database right, copyright or both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right) is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold across Europe (own intellectual creation). Thanks for clarifying this. Does this mean, then, that every country which has a database right also has database copyright? (Perhaps there are some countries outside Europe which hold databases to be protectable via sui generis right but not via copyright.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes: A database may attract either database right, copyright or both. The change to database copyright (as opposed to database right) is that copyright in a database has a harmonised subsistence threshold across Europe (own intellectual creation). Does this mean, then, that every country which has a database right also has database copyright? No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over, Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in Europe - is that so? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 14:57, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over, Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in Europe - is that so? What difference does it make? It does not effect ODbL and that is what we are here to discuss. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Regarding future Contributor Terms upgrades
The License Working Group had a request from a contributor to make a statement to the effect that users who sign up to v1.0 of the Contributor Terms will be allowed to upgrade to future versions. I am now happy to provide such a formal statement: All the rights granted in the new proposed version are already granted in 1.0 so it is not essential to explicitly upgrade. However, the License Working Group clarifies that any contributor who has signed up to Contributor Terms 1.0 will be given the opportunity to voluntarily upgrade to the next revision and will be provided a mechanism to do so. The LWG also believes that this should be a general principle for any future revision. Mike Chair LWG At 02:27 PM 15/11/2010, David Ellams wrote: Dear LWG I am writing to request that the LWG make a statement to the effect that users who sign up to v1.0 of the Contributor Terms will be allowed to upgrade to future versions. I have not yet accepted the Contributor Terms, although I am supportive of the aims of the licence change process. Previously, the main obstacle has been that I may wish to trace (or possibly even import) from some of the OS Opendata resources in the future. I am heartened to see the efforts being made to address any incompatibility between the CTs and OS Opendata. Although I have never yet made substantial use of OS Opendata, I have been holding off from accepting the CTs in fear that if I accept now I may not be able to upgrade to any possible future version which may address the incompatibilities (thus leaving me unable to make use of OS Opendata even if the new CTs are compatible). I have heard reference to that possibility in a couple of mailing list discussions, but I would be very grateful if the LWG could more formally express its intention to allow users who accept the current CTs to upgrade to any future CTs in a manner that supersedes the current CTs. I for one, will accept the CTs without hesitation once such a statement has been made (even though I accept that there is no guarantee that compatibility will be achieved in future versions of the CTs or even that there will be any future versions). Finally, let me express my sincere thanks for your tremendous efforts in addressing the issues raised by the community in relation to the licence change. Keep up the good work! Best wishes David Ellams (user:davespod) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 15:22, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 23 November 2010 14:57, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: No copyright and database-right are not universal the world over, Yes - it's my understanding that the sui generis database right exists only in Europe - is that so? What difference does it make? It does not effect ODbL and that is what we are here to discuss. To answer some of the questions raised by my comment (and not just this one). The sui generis database right exists only in the EU and the EEA. Most of the other jurisdictions that I am familiar with (Australia, US, to some extent New Zealand) do not have specific database rights - what protection there might be for collections of information will generally be under copyright (and in most cases this will have a much higher threshold than database copyright did in the UK and is not simply based on the amount of effort put into collecting the data). There are other (non-copyright) principles that may apply, for example some species of hot news/misappropriation protection might apply to certain database in the US (but almost certainly not OSM). The sui generis database right is relevant to ODbL because the ODbL incorporates the database right into its definition section: [“Database Right” – Means rights resulting from the Chapter III (“sui generis”) rights in the Database Directive (as amended and as transposed by member states), which includes the Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents, as well as any similar rights available in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 10.4.] So if another country outside the EU (or EEA?) were to implement a specific non-copyright protection of data, ODbL's database right protection would not apply to it. All countries with the sui generis database right have harmonised the threshold for database copyright as I have explained. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: To answer some of the questions raised by my comment (and not just this one). The sui generis database right exists only in the EU and the EEA. All countries with the sui generis database right have harmonised the threshold for database copyright as I have explained. Thanks. My followup question - which is not quite so much a question of pure fact, and addressed not to you but to the list in general - is that if database copyright applies wherever database right does, why not use copyright alone? If I've misunderstood what 'database copyright' means, and it's not as strong as ordinary copyright, please correct me. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 23 November 2010 19:50, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: To be precise a database right is earned when there is a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of the Yes. I was deliberately avoiding side-tracking the discussion onto the nature of the investment - I'm keen to avoid sounding like I am lecturing. database. Has the OSMF done enough to earn that right? Most obtaining has That's a good question and a tricky one. How much is substantial is not well settled in the case law - but many European jurisdictions seem to be quite generous at finding the existence of a right with relatively modest levels of investment. substantial could mean not merely trivial or a large amount. But your question does not exhaust the enquiry - has OSMF a database right (or could it obtain one)? Its entirely possible for a large number of people to work together on a project so that *jointly* they own a database right in a jointly created database. I don't know much of OSM's history, but I'm guessing that it started out like that, without any clear assignment of rights between the contributors (looking at a history of the CT's suggests this), so that what you may have is a joint work. If the contributors licence their database rights to OSMF then OSMF will have sufficient rights to sublicense under ODbL (assuming lots of other things are true as well - I'm just looking at the ownership question). I think it would be easy enough to defend OSM being a database and there being a database right in its data. Who owns it may be less important, unless you try to sue for infringement of course, but as I understand existing policy, that is not OSMF's intention. been done by contributors who are not members of OSMF and have no connection with OSMF. As far as I know OSMF has no verification function and certainly They have _some_ connection in that they contributed to OSM with which OSMF is connected. doesn't make a substantial investment in verification. As for presenting they host a server running Mapnik and provide a planet dump and some APIs. Their only investment is the cost of the hardware[1]. Quite. There's obviously a question of what substantial means - see above. In much of the database rights literature there is often a reference to the $ value spent to create the database in question. Presumably this is relevant to whether the right has been earned based on a substantial investment. How does OSMF measure up on this, having spent just a few thousand dollars on hardware? Hard to say, although investment does not have to be of money, but of resources, so lots of people working hard in their spare time as volunteers counts. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
