[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps
Anybody can explain how it can be legal to claim copyright on old material, say 18th or 19th century works? When browsing the web (mostly library pages and catalogues) those institutions often claim full copyright and prohibit reproduction, distribution etc. of the (digitalized/scanned/photographed) works, but I wonder on what basis they do so, given that the authors of those works are all dead for centuries now. Would it be legitimate to derive features (e.g. names or old names) for osm from such sources if the distributing entity claims copyright on the material? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Anybody can explain how it can be legal to claim copyright on old material, say 18th or 19th century works? When browsing the web (mostly library pages and catalogues) those institutions often claim full copyright and prohibit reproduction, distribution etc. of the (digitalized/scanned/photographed) works, but I wonder on what basis they do so, given that the authors of those works are all dead for centuries now. Would it be legitimate to derive features (e.g. names or old names) for osm from such sources if the distributing entity claims copyright on the material? As I understand it, in some jurisdictions, while the original piece (on paper, canvas, etc.) is already in the public domain, a digital scan, reproduction, or photograph of the piece may still be given copyright protection, especially if the jurisdiction uses the sweat of the brow doctrine[1] as the reproduction process may take a lot of effort and skill (e.g., preventing damage to the original piece). This is notably NOT the case in the United States as shown by the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case[2]. As for deriving factual data from the reproductions, I think this should be OK since you are not copying the reproduction itself but rather picking up uncopyrightable data, much the same as if you are picking out facts by reading a copyrighted piece of text. But of course, IANAL. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps
Their are quite a few facets of this issue, just some of many: - do you actually have access to an original copy? Obviously who ever is providing access to an online version is completely free to define whatever ToS they want. - sweat of the brow provisions as Eugene mentions - dead for centuries is typically not actually true in the plural. Particularly if you might have had rather young co-authors (aka apprentices) you might be surprised how far in to the 20th century copyright protection could potentially extend. Simon Am 04.04.2014 18:02, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Anybody can explain how it can be legal to claim copyright on old material, say 18th or 19th century works? When browsing the web (mostly library pages and catalogues) those institutions often claim full copyright and prohibit reproduction, distribution etc. of the (digitalized/scanned/photographed) works, but I wonder on what basis they do so, given that the authors of those works are all dead for centuries now. Would it be legitimate to derive features (e.g. names or old names) for osm from such sources if the distributing entity claims copyright on the material? cheers, Martin ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps
On 04.04.14 21:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: this wasn't obvious to me, I can understand that they can charge whatever they want for making available a copy, but I didn't know they could further contractually forbid to redistribute / copy / upload to wiki commons etc., even if the material is in the PD according to copyright law Below the line the question is: was the act of reproducing that thing an act of creation (Akt der Schöpfung im Sinne des Urheberrechts; also mit der nötigen Schöpfungshöhe). This is usually granted for a photography. The copyright status (*Urheberrechts*status) of the reproduction is separate from the copyright status of the original (in the case of an act of creation). und auf Deutsch kurz (weil da tu' ich mir leichter): Fotografien sind üblicherweise urheberrechtliche Werke, Xerokopien (meines Wissens) nicht. Beim Scan weiß ich nicht, kommt vermutlich auch auf den Aufwand an. Im Streitfall muß ein Gericht entscheiden, ob der jeweilige Akt ein Schöpfungsakt war oder nicht. Bezieht sich jetzt auf österr. (vermutl. Europäisches) Recht. Du könntest vermuten, dass es eine reine Kopie war (und kein schöpferischer Akt) und die Reproduktion verwenden. Nur wenn der Urheber Dich dann verklagt, muß das Gericht entscheiden. Und wenn Du verlierst, hast Du eine Urheberrechtsverletzung begangen... And Google has even translated quite useful (slightly edited): Photographs are usually copyrighted works, photocopies (to my knowledge) are not. In the case of a scan I do not know, it probably also depends on the effort. In case of dispute, a court must decide whether the particular act was an act of creation or not. Refers now on Austrian (probably European) law. You might suspect that it was a pure copy (and not a creative act) and use the reproduction. Only if the author then sued you, the court must decide. And if you lose, you have committed copyright infringement... /al ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
