Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Hi, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Was the answer to my question that nobody knows how long ODbL is protecting the data and it is impossible to tell it exactly? No, I think the answer was forever. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: Have we reached a consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright? yes. see the contributor terms document. I think what might have been meant is not 'does the OSM foundation claim copyright over the map data' but rather 'do we claim that the map data is a work subject to copyright'. As far as I know OSM is still making that claim, and there are no plans to change this. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Hi, James Livingston wrote: On 30/09/2009, at 7:36 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright? I don't think that a consensus on what we think matters when discussing whether the contents of the database are protected by copyright Well if you say you don't claim any then for all intents and purposes it does not matter whether your jurisdiction says that you could claim copyright or that you couldn't. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Frederik Ramm wrote: For example if OSM user n80 artfully crafts a way that doesn't even exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps be protected by copyright in some jurisdictions, completely independent of the database and whether or not it is substantial. I think we need to get away from this OSM canard that trivial Easter eggs (we'd spot and delete any non-trivial ones, of course) can be copyrighted or otherwise protected. People keep reciting it as if it's fact, but it smells of finest bullshit to me - unless someone can actually point to chapter and verse in a major jurisdiction where they might be copyrightable. They wouldn't be in the UK, and UK copyright law is more draconian than pretty much anywhere else. Easter eggs are there to swing the balance of proof in a case of suspected infringement. Nothing more. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Protection-time-of-ODbL-tp25666837p25678041.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Matt Amos wrote: And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in Europe, also terminates after 15 years? you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection. that's why we need a contract, because there are no sui generis rights to take advantage of. I don't think I understand you, or maybe you don't understand me. I'll try this in individual steps: snip Clearer now? i understood that part of your point the first time around, but i was correcting your claim that the ODbL tries ... to assert rights over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none. i was pointing out that ODbL doesn't (and, as you say, can't) claim any *rights*, so it has to try to emulate them using contract law instead. maybe this is why lawyers use capitalised terms, like Rights, with a defined meaning :-) but i take your point about the variable length of the protection in different jurisdictions. maybe it's cold comfort that any copyright-based license has exactly the same problem. i can't find anywhere in the GPL, for example, which states the length of the term and countries have wildly varying copyright terms according to [1] (from life+100 years in mexico down to life+25 in the seychelles or even 0 in the marshall islands, where copyright law doesn't exist) yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed. Aren't you now mixing database law and copyright terms. Whether or not something falls under copyright has nothing to with whether it is substantial related to some kind of database, has it? well, in some jurisdictions there might be copyright over the data arrangement, but - you're right - that's not what i meant. i should have said database rights. For example if OSM user n80 artfully crafts a way that doesn't even exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps be protected by copyright in some jurisdictions, completely independent of the database and whether or not it is substantial. If I read the contributor agreement correctly, then we require from n80 that he declares never to exercise his copyright. Whether or not, and for how long, database protection covers his work of art, does not come into the equation - the copyright question is over when the data is uploaded. Correct? the contributor terms covers the copyright in individual elements, granting a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. so, yes; individual data items come with a very liberal license. this doesn't mean that certain aspects of copyright don't still exist (e.g: in some jurisdictions an author's moral rights are non-waivable), but then we can start arguing over whether any copyright is valid over factual data, etc... etc... cheers, matt [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Hi, How long time ODbL will protect the data? The EU database directive Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases gives 15 years protection Article 10 Term of protection 1. The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of the year following the date of completion. 2. In the case of a database which is made available to the public in whatever manner before expiry of the period provided for in paragraph 1, the term of protection by that right shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of the year following the date when the database was first made available to the public. 3. Any substantial change, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, to the contents of a database, including any substantial change resulting from the accumulation of successive additions, deletions or alterations, which would result in the database being considered to be a substantial new investment, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, shall qualify the database resulting from that investment for its own term of protection. Is ODbL going to follow the same rule? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
El Martes, 29 de Septiembre de 2009, Jukka Rahkonen escribió: How long time ODbL will protect the data? The EU database directive Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases gives 15 years protection The thing to understand here is that copyleft licenses are an exercise of your rights. The CC licenses are built on top of your copyrights, and the GPL is built on top of your rights over software. So far so good. Thing is, all copyleft licenses won't interfere with existing rights. For example, in my jurisdiction, you can *quote* *any* copyrighted text in order to make a reference, or you can make a parody of *any* work. If you apply a CC-by-nd-nc to the work, it doesn't matter at all, because you can not assert any rights over people making quotes or parodies. The same goes with the ODbL. Once you make a planet dump and let 15 years pass, you can not assert any rights over the dump... so you can not assert the ODbL. Simple as that. Just remember: copyleft works because we have rights over stuff, but use those rights to let people use the works, not to prevent people from using them. (YMMV, IANAL, you know the drill) Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.30-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.10, and PHP 5.2.10-2.2 generating this signature. Uptime: 22:41:48 up 17 days, 12:13, 2 users, load average: 1.28, 1.04, 0.80 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
