Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: And of course we are using the same rules for taking and giving, or? Same amounts of data we consider non-copyrightable and keep therefore in the database can be taken out from the new ODbl-OSM database as if they were PD? ODbL's concept if you take a lot of insubstantial extracts and combine them then they again form a substantial extract does not apply to copyright of individual contributions made under CC-BY-SA - if you take lots of non-copyrighted bits submitted by various users and combine them then they don't suddenly become copyrighted - or maybe they do, but then it's your copyright and not that of the original contributors I think that is the same with ODbL or CC-BY-SA or any licence, after all, a licence cannot affect what is covered by copyright. If you look at database rights (to the extent that anyone really understands what they do, since I believe case law is quite thin) then the same applies. And if you believe that the ODbL creates an enforceable contract with the whole world so that it can add additional restrictions that don't come from copyright or database right law, in that case too the contract is with the distributor of the map data (or perhaps the original aggregator - I'm not sure) not with the contributors. I think the other poster makes a good point which is that double standards are to be avoided. If OSM wishes to take the position that all map data, whether strictly copyrightable or not, must be used and copied only according to certain conditions, then it should treat its contributions the same way. You may be right that since the ODbL refers to 'Substantial' use of the contents, it does allow picking out small bits and pieces in the same way as might be done for a relicensing exercise. However, it also notes Substantial – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents. To be clear - of course the existing OSM map is not covered by ODbL, but please do unto others as you would have them do unto you. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Hi, Richard Weait wrote: Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right? Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes - certainly qualifies for never be considered for copyright because copyright needs humans to do something; I'm not sure about database right though. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On 14 October 2010 09:07, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: I've not been following the detail of this discussion. One of my worries is that a lot of things are said - maybe off-hand - that turn into assumptions that feed into later discussion. Since this is an area of law (database/copyright) in which I practice I suppose I'm rather sensitive to misconceptions, but it does concern me that OSM might be making its policies based on what a bunch of people think, having chewed the matter over on a mailing list and without formal legal advice (and my contributions to the list aren't that - I'm not instructed by OSMF). I just wanted to clarify this, in case it sounds like I am playing the I am a lawyer card and implying that non lawyers are not entitled to an opinion on any legal topic - which would of course be quite mistaken. What I am saying is this: First, that in my experience the most useful and practical thing that my clients do (and which I encourage them to do) is to think about what outcomes they want, rather than focussing on the law. It may be that those outcomes are very difficult or impossible to achieve legally, but once they are clear in their mind(s) what their priorities are, I can then advise them how much risk is associated with different choices they might make. Armed with that advice they can then make a final decision as to what to do. Lawyers (and the law) should be seen as very much subservient to policy, their job is to help you work out what you can do, not what you should do. Note I said how much risk because a lot of my work is associated exactly with this kind of crowd-sources/online intellectual property law and as most of you know there is not a lot of certainty about how the law applies even the the web in general, let alone to the more interesting uses of it. Some things are more risky than others, but if we all wanted to be cast-iron safe, there'd be very little e-commerce. So, the argument about what you want to achieve and what you may be able to achieve legally aren't the same thing, Second point, also gained from long experience, is that getting the law right via a mailing list like this is rarely safe. That is why I make it clear that I'm not giving legal advice (and phrase my answers accordingly). When giving an advice a lawyer will study the problem hard, check for any recent case law, (possibly) re-read any relevant case law to make sure exactly what nuances of meaning there might be, consult any academic commentary and sometimes talk to colleagues, before giving an opinion. A mailing list answer rarely involves that level of consideration. I expect the same is true of non-lawyers on this list (if you do all the above, then that's impressive). I can't tell you what to do. I'm just contributing because (i) OSM seems as an outsider to be a great project (ii) some of the legal difficulties presented by OSM are interesting to my legal academic mind. This is just an attempt to share some of my experience. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On 10/14/2010 07:42 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Richard Weait wrote: Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right? Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes - certainly qualifies for never be considered for copyright because copyright needs humans to do something; I'm not sure about database right though. Further to Francis's points (and he's too kind to the test for originality in the UK, it is *incredibly* low ;-) ), bear in mind that his Mandelbrot Set example holds even if he's written a bot or daemon to create images while he's asleep. A human being always, ultimately, causes software to be run. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:05 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:44 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license reading the legal FAQ for the license change: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ there is a paragraph that looks strange to me: ... - we may take the view that those who have made small contributions, but cannot be contacted, would relicence their data under the new licence. We will enable them to contact us at a later date. this part looks like a problem to me, as it is opt-out instead of the always proclaimed opt-in, or have I misunderstood this? Or is this refering to anonymous edits only? Unfortunately the wiki seems to offer conflicting views on what might happen. The section you quoted [1] does indeed seem to indicate that contributions from some people who have not responded will be left in the database. However further up the same page [2] it says remove any data from any users who do not respond or respond negatively (the hard bit) , and again here [3] it says What do we do with the people who have Declined or not responded? Their contributions would not be available under the future ODbL version of the database. David David, what would you suggest? Can you see a situation where discarding the data is not required in the case of non-response? For example, a 'bot that does nothing but fix spelling in keys, changes Amenity to amenity, but the 'bot does not answer the mandatory relicensing question. Should we revert their changes back to Amenity? As another example, a user adds one POI, perhaps their business, to OSM and nothing else. They never respond. Do we remove the data? As another example, an editor makes many mass edits around the planet, arbitrarily changing keys/values to match their recent wiki postings, then answers no to relicensing. What do you suggest is the right answer for each of these situations? Would your answer have universal support from the community? Can you create some other situations and responses that will find universal support from the community? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: For example, a 'bot that does nothing but fix spelling in keys, changes Amenity to amenity, but the 'bot does not answer the mandatory relicensing question. Should we revert their changes back to Amenity? As another example, a user adds one POI, perhaps their business, to OSM and nothing else. They never respond. Do we remove the data? As another example, an editor makes many mass edits around the planet, arbitrarily changing keys/values to match their recent wiki postings, then answers no to relicensing. What do you suggest is the right answer for each of these situations? Eh, I'd say revert them, and then run a bot to make the changes yourself. Not so much because it's legally or morally required but just because it's easier than making special exceptions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: I think you have understood this all right. In my eyes there's a wide band between clearly non-copyrightable edits on one side (which we could legally keep in OSM even if the person who added them said no - but we're unlikely to exercise that right) and edits that are clearly works on the other (which are thus copyrightable in some countries). In between there may well lie some edits that are extremely unlikely to qualify as a work in terms of IP law, but where we would still remove them if the person who added them were to ask us to do it. For these, I think the opt-out mechanism is morally acceptable. And of course we are using the same rules for taking and giving, or? Same amounts of data we consider non-copyrightable and keep therefore in the database can be taken out from the new ODbl-OSM database as if they were PD? And even store masses of separate extracts into one database because that's what we would do ourselves? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Jukka, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: And of course we are using the same rules for taking and giving, or? Same amounts of data we consider non-copyrightable and keep therefore in the database can be taken out from the new ODbl-OSM database as if they were PD? And even store masses of separate extracts into one database because that's what we would do ourselves? I'm not sure I quite understand. Our new license does have a provision that allows using non-substantial extracts without regard to the license. This can be viewed as similar to what I described above, although there is a big difference. If one million users each make a non-copyrightable contribution to OSM under CC-BY-SA then I can take those one million contributions and use them in any way I want because if they are not copyrightable then CC-BY-SA doesn't have any effect. However if I put those same one million contributions into a database protected by ODbL, then they are likely to form a substantial extract and thus they cannot be extracted outside of ODbL terms. (On the other hand, it is well possible that there is an individual contribution which is copyrightable but still doesn't form a substantial extract.) ODbL's concept if you take a lot of insubstantial extracts and combine them then they again form a substantial extract does not apply to copyright of individual contributions made under CC-BY-SA - if you take lots of non-copyrighted bits submitted by various users and combine them then they don't suddenly become copyrighted - or maybe they do, but then it's your copyright and not that of the original contributors (think of tearing a magazine to shreds and then gluing together a nice picture from the coloured pieces of paper). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: You may also want to take into account the automatic database rights in some users' contributions (even if not copyrightable), which iirc are not disclaimed by CC-By-SA 2 unported. If we assume there to be such rights (and there might well be!), would this not mean that we'd have to remove their contribution from OSM immediately because the required permissions for re-use/distribution have not been granted? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
- Original Message - From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com David, what would you suggest? Can you see a situation where discarding the data is not required in the case of non-response? My first suggestion would be that the wiki is corrected so that it does not contradict itself. [ ... ] Let's improve that wiki page. Let's clarify exactly which edits need permission to be promoted to ODbL. For example, a 'bot that does nothing but fix spelling in keys, changes Amenity to amenity, but the 'bot does not answer the mandatory relicensing question. Should we revert their changes back to Amenity? As another example, a user adds one POI, perhaps their business, to OSM and nothing else. They never respond. Do we remove the data? As another example, an editor makes many mass edits around the planet, arbitrarily changing keys/values to match their recent wiki postings, then answers no to relicensing. What do you suggest is the right answer for each of these situations? Would your answer have universal support from the community? Can you create some other situations and responses that will find universal support from the community? Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right? If so how do we recognize it? How do we recognize the boundary between insignificant and significant? Copyright law suggests that there is a minimum size for a work to gain copyright protection. It's my understanding that a book title is too short for copyright protection, while a chapter, page or even paragraph would gain copyright protection. European Database Directive suggests that there is some insignificant amount of data that can be used from an otherwise database right protected database without violating that database right. My position would be simple. If a user has not agreed to the relicencing then his/her edits should not remain in the database after any switchover. This has a number of advantages. 1) its morally correct. 2) its simple to understand 3) its easier to code for Now some people will argue that there some OSM contributions or edit that..is so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right. Well if it is so insignificant then not including it in the database after any switchover will have an insignificant effect, and so surely no one will worry if its not there. If people worry about the absence of the data then that surely lends weight to the argument that it was significant in the first place. Or can the data be insignificant enough not to warrant any copyright protection, yet at the same time significant enough that it should be left in the database. David Where do you suggest that these lines be drawn? Take a position. Let's run your ideas up the flagpole and see if we can get the community to salute. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If one million users each make a non-copyrightable contribution to OSM under CC-BY-SA then I can take those one million contributions and use them in any way I want because if they are not copyrightable then CC-BY-SA doesn't have any effect. However if I put those same one million contributions into a database protected by ODbL, then they are likely to form a substantial extract and thus they cannot be extracted outside of ODbL terms. How does one go about turning an ordinary database into a database protected by ODbL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
