Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[tomoya muramoto]

>  what’s the difference in reading a printed sign on the street
and a shops website stating the opening hours for our purpose?

For me, "a printed sign on the street" is on-the-ground information,
and "a shops website" is not on-the-ground information.

muramoto
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[Tom Hummel via legal-talk]

> I am quite ignorant about the EU directive and it is beyond my ability to
> understand what is stated in it.

The problem is, I don’t have the slightest idea how this all plays out
in Japan. The only thing I would imagine is that there are some
similiar protection laws because Japan signed the TRIPS agreement. Art.
10 par. II of TRIPS requires some protection. That is probably as
close as I can get about your situation.

I think there may be some provisions found in ACTA, which Japan seems
to have signed. So for OSM hosters in Japan, there could be
implications. Does anybody know?

Most servers are however located within the EU (for now), so EU law
should remain our focus.

> someone publishing data about their OWN shops (or other types of objects) →
> not passing barrier of protection
> 
> someone publishing data about shops where there was "substantial" effort into 
> making database →
> protected

That would be my line of argument, because compiling information about
_your own shop_ will be trivial most of the time. There are, of course,
other situations. However opening hours is such an ordinary
piece of data, it will seem ridiculous someone claiming any sort
of effort while compiling it for his/her own business. Within the few
cases I have found, the parties claim hundreds of thousands of € in
costs for creating databases.

The distinction is not 100% safe, but in my opinion this
constitutes an acceptable guideline. Any effort of a third party
gathering information about others should for safety be considered
substantial.

At last – what’s the difference in reading a printed sign on the street
and a shops website stating the opening hours for our purpose?

Opinions?

About these TESCO claims… some seem quite outlandish indeed.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Jul 2019, 16:21 by yumean1...@gmail.com:

> Both of you are saying that factual data such as opening_hours, phone numbers 
> or addresses require no investiment 
> and thus they are not protected by the database rights. Am I right?
>
it seems to me that (I am no a lawyer etc) that it depends:

someone publishing data about their OWN shops (or other types of objects):
not passing barrier of protection

someone publishing data about shops where there was "substantial" effort into 
making database:
protected


For example making on  my own database of opening hours of Tesco shops in my 
country
would require visiting every single shop, I think that this data would be 
probably protected

---

in short: 
- we can copy from websites maintained by businesses both small and large as 
far as
copyright is concerned (other limitations may apply like concerns about data 
quality)
that give information about their own business
- we must not copy from other sources like phonebooks/Google Maps that 
aggregate results
about other businesses (except cases where we are really sure that database 
protection laws do not apply)

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[石野貴之]

Thank you, Mateusz and Tom.

I am quite ignorant about the EU directive and it is beyond my ability to
understand what is stated in it.
However, there is one thing I could barely find in your messages.

Both of you are saying that factual data such as opening_hours, phone
numbers or addresses require no investiment
and thus they are not protected by the database rights. Am I right?

Takayuki Ishino
yumean1...@gmail.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[Tom Hummel via legal-talk]

> because it would be unfair if websites of small business are allowed
> and those of large comanies are not.

I don’t seem to be able to follow the problem here, hope you can help
me: how can a collection of opening hours be a protectable database
under directive 96/9/EG (speaking for the EU)?

> Maybe it can be argued that company has no substantial investment
> here? In neither obtaining nor verification nor presentation?
> 
> Presentation is simple one - there is clearly no substantial
> investment here. Not sure about what is understood as "substantial"
> for obtaining or verification.

You’re on the right path here.

First, only investments pertaining to obtaining or verification are
understood as investments under art. 7 par. I directive 96/9/EG. The
expenditure that incurred in the process of generating that data does
not.

Par. 46 of the court (EuGH, 09.11.2004 - C-203/02) adopted opinion of
the advocate general states:

« All the language versions thus allow of an interpretation according
to which, although ‘obtaining’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of
the Directive does not cover the mere production of data, that is to
say, the generation of data, (10) and thus not the preparatory phase,
(11) where the creation of data coincides with its collection and
screening, the protection of the Directive kicks in. »¹

My question would be: how can a chain-business or even a franchise
business claim any investment in obtaining the opening hours of their
associated places of operation? In many cases they even dictate these
things, or simply ask the franchisee, or even demand the operators to
enter them into a list themselves.

I agree that the term ”substantial” rises some dificulty and I have
some trouble finding good guidelines.

¹
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text==48761=0=EN=req==first=1

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Jul 2019, 11:39 by yumean1...@gmail.com:

> because it would be unfair if websites of small business are allowed and 
> those of large comanies are not. 
>

I am guessing that it is also OK for large companies - but this is based on 
common sense
that often fails for copyright.

Though I would not care that for once something is unfair against large 
companies 
(to limit to OSM examples - name-suggestion-index[1] is useful and helps during 
mapping
but is biased against small companies and helps only in mapping chain POIs)

[1] https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/ 




warning: I am digging into it as I am curious what is the answer, please 
remember
that I am not a lawyer and may be hilariously mistaken


https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009=EN
 


"Whereas the term ‘database’ should be understood to include literary, 
artistic, musical or
other collections of works or collections of other material such as texts, 
sound, images,
numbers, facts, and data; whereas it should cover collections of independent 
works, data
or other materials which are systematically or methodically arranged and can be 
individually
accessed; whereas this means that a recording or an audiovisual, 
cinematographic, literary
or musical work as such does not fall within the scope of this Directive;"

"Whereas the protection provided for in this Directive relates to databases in 
which works,
data or other materials have been arranged systematically or methodically; 
whereas it is not
necessary for those materials to have been physically stored in an organized 
manner,"

I really would like to say that "here is list of opening hours for our 1250 
shops" is clearly
not a database but it seems to qualify (warning: I am not a lawyer).


https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009#d1e757-20-1
 

has

"Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which 
shows that there 
has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either 
the obtaining, 
verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or 
re-utilization of the 
whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, 
of the contents 
of that database."

Maybe it can be argued that company has no substantial investment here?
In neither obtaining nor verification nor presentation?

Presentation is simple one - there is clearly no substantial investment here.
Not sure about what is understood as "substantial" for obtaining or 
verification.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[石野貴之]

Thank you for the responce.

To Joseph:
> Survey would still be needed, because website information can be wrong
> or out-of-date. Even if website data is allowed, in-person survey is
> the "gold standard", best practice.

I totally agree. Mapping without survey is regarded as an "import" and
should be followed by the import guideline.

To Mateusz:

- facts are not copyrightable and from copyright view it does not matter
> whatever
> one copied information from opening hours sign or from website
> - collections of facts may have copyright or copyright like restrictions,
> copying
> phone book or all branches of $CORPORATION may be not OK
> - copying collections of facts is not OK also when distributed among many
> people
> (that is why Wikidata is problematic - copying database one fact at time
> is not removing
> sui generis database rights)
>

That's right.  I understand copying collections of facts is a problematic
action over sui generis database right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right

I am sure that mapping opening hours, name etc from signs is OK.
>

We all agree with this. However, some of us don't like the idea

I am sure that mapping opening hours, name etc from website of individual
> business is OK.
>

because it would be unfair if websites of small business are allowed and
those of large comanies are not.

I am sure that "we would able to map POIs without surveying on the ground
> at all" does not
> matter as far as copyright status of such data is concerned.
>

Yeah, it's not a violation of laws or licences " as far as copyright
status" is concerned. But it may cause a problem
when it comes to database rights and other rights. Thus we need a new
guideline not to violate these rights.

Thank you.

Takayuki Ishino (user: yumean1119)
yumean1...@gmail.com

>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Jul 2019, 05:22 by yumean1...@gmail.com:

> The main point at issue is whether we are allowed to use official websites 
> that provide primary information or not.
> Some of us think that we can use data from official websites unless it is 
> prohibited by their term of service.
>
I am not a lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong:
- facts are not copyrightable and from copyright view it does not matter 
whatever
one copied information from opening hours sign or from website
- collections of facts may have copyright or copyright like restrictions, 
copying
phone book or all branches of $CORPORATION may be not OK
- copying collections of facts is not OK also when distributed among many people
(that is why Wikidata is problematic - copying database one fact at time is not 
removing
sui generis database rights)

> is also against using official websites. His opinion is that we would able to 
> map POIs without surveying on the ground at all
> if it was OK to use data from websites. 
> (example: > 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ja/2019-June/010604.html 
> >  )
>
1) Some survey is necessary to check whatever data is trustworthy and up to date
2) Even if true it would not influence copyright status of such data
3) Imports (mapping POIs without surveying) is acceptable in case of good data 
on a suitable
license and following import guidelines and there are cases of succesfull and 
useful imports
doing this.

> What do you think about the issue?
>
I am sure that mapping opening hours, name etc from signs is OK.
I am sure that mapping opening hours, name etc from website of individual 
business is OK.
I am sure that "we would able to map POIs without surveying on the ground at 
all" does not
matter as far as copyright status of such data is concerned.

I am not sure is it OK to systematically copy such data from website that is 
basically a database.
I am not sure is it OK to systematically copy such data from website that is 
basically a database,
with individuals copying one fact at time.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data

[石野貴之]

The previous mail was cross-posted on talk, talk-ja and legal-talk.
However, I was given an  advice to avoid cross-posting and aggregate the
discussion on legal-talk.

Please remove talk and talk-ja from the mail adress when you post your
opinion. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience.
Thank you!

Takayuki Ishino (User: yumean1119)
yumean1...@gmail.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk