in the database in the UK as well. Quite
possibly not an infringement of copyright elsewhere. I simply don't
know about that.
Generally doing something indirectly via other works cannot be used to
launder an infringement in the UK.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk
and pedantic to some, but if you care about legal
issues at all that is how it has to be some times.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
there's no contractual
relationship between A and B, though its easy enough for one to be
implied in some jurisdictions.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
minor points of pedantry (I don't know if OSMF complies properly
with the PECD for instance) and the OS Opendata licence fails to
expressly allow sublicensing, but that appears implied from the rest
of the terms.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing
that job well
as far as I can see and prevents OSM from relicensing nearmap data under
ODbL.
All this is, of course, on the assumption that any intellectual property
rights require licensing.
--
Francis Davey
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
of their contribution in some countries and some of
those rights might be copyright and therefore fall under CC-BY-SA.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
. The CJEU has been asked.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
even for breach of copyright. How *effective* ODbL
(or CC for that matter) might be is a separate and equally vexed
question to the question of what is caught.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http
for anywhere other than the UK, where its sufficiently
complicated to use up my time so far. You may well be right elsewhere
in the world. Something for me to think about.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http
but then arguing in court that what they took is 'database
contents' and therefore they are entitled to use it under the DbCL.
No. That's clearly not so.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
, whether or not there are any other IP rights.
Other jurisdictions may (of course) vary, though Europe less so.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
clarified, I don't think it makes sense to ask whether
something is considered to be pure 'contents'. The two questions
are: (i) what is covered by the contributor terms (everything
uploaded) and (ii) what does the ODbL licence (the arrangement of
OSMF's database)?
--
Francis Davey
and that licence, though not valid
against the real owner is valid against me. Its a feature of relativity of
title and/or estoppel. I don't know what your jurisdiction is, so it may be
you don't have those concepts there.
But its probably not worth the time arguing over it.
--
Francis Davey
On 19 April 2011 13:46, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
My jurisdiction is Florida.
OK. Mine is England and Wales. Licenses operate on different principles here
as they do with you, so we can leave it there.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing
licence L1 and Y licences the same
work to Z under licence L2 where Y's right to give L2 is given under
L1 then L2 is a sublicence of L1. That is the situation you are
describing. And that is (as I understand it) what sublicence means.
--
Francis Davey
doesn't rely on contract to work.
I suspect there are more difficulties with ODbL style contract-reliant
effects to third parties of this kind.
Anyway, as you say this is fairly off topic and not what 80n asked.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing
with crowd-sourced map
projects :-).
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
it will use for the data.
You, or anyone else, might think that these extra terms make the
overall deal a bad one. You might want (for example) OSMF to be more
restricted in what it can do with a contribution.
But that is a different argument from arguing with clause 2.
--
Francis Davey
that
there is a usual way of working which involves a download of parts of
the OSMF database, editing that downloaded data structure and then
uploading so that the changes made change the OSMF database.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
in many
projects such as clause 2 in the contributor terms.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, then I'm happy to say so
somewhere. Where's a good place to say it?
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
I've made the situation clear.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
to
prevent most licensed data from being imported. Recently on this list
(I think) we were pointed at the LWG's minutes where it was decided to
take this approach to avoid various risks to OSMF.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
with its
disparate rights into a single product licensed under a single licence is
not an easy task.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, since you need to get started with your list.
There are I believe policy arguments as well as to whether third party data
sets should be allowed or not. Of them I cannot speak of course.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
for infringement is negligible.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
from taking those Contributor Terms.
I think the idea is that it will be up to contributors to decide
whether a licence is free and open rather than leaving it to
lawyers to do so.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
hope) gives a lead to contributors as to the intention of
OSMF if any vote were held.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
of the following licences: ODbL
1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the
database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence ...
So OSMF may use any subset (including the empty set) of such licences.
--
Francis Davey
On 24 March 2011 09:46, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Francis Davey wrote:
droit d'auteur does not (as I understand the term) include
database right. Its un droit des producteurs de bases de données
rather than un droit d'auteur (forgive my atrocious French - its been
nearly
, I'll see what anyone thinks about that when I am back from holiday.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 24 March 2011 13:27, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR
Excellent. Its nice not to have to work from PDF's.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
On 24 March 2011 09:29, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
In context (which is how all contracts are read) it clearly means that
the purpose of the contract is to ensure that the contribution of data
does not infringe and to that end the contributor gives a warranty as
to their state
the right to sue for an infringement of that IP. That is why talking
of an assignment is misleading.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
lovely
mapping.
Yes. Sorry. I simply haven't had time recently to contribute at all
helpfully. Too many hearings and too many clients with problems to
afford any spare for this.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, but the CTs also include a grant to sue for infringement.
A non-exclusive licensee may, in some circumstances, be able to sue
for copyright infringement.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 15 December 2010 19:06, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Francis Davey schrieb:
There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
in principle in holding a vote by email
You mean other than emails being easily falsified and there's not even the
slightest guarantee that a normal email
shadow of a doubt on that point and does not read
unnaturally, so I'd suggest it as a change.
NB: we've been asked to suggest changes to the CT's if we think they
are unclear. I cannot remember whether you caught that.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk
, not merely those
who vote. If there's a desire for a different effect, then some change
in drafting would be needed. If not, then it is probably worth nailing
the point as I have indicated.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either.
What would you suggest? A website with some form of authentication
given to contributors when they sign up to the CT's?
--
Francis Davey
___
legal
by any other
electronic means. There are of course problems, but then so are there
with paper ballots as we all know.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, which is completely clear. The phrase
at least a 2/3 majority vote has a pretty clear and unambiguous
meaning.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 10 December 2010 08:28, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Eg, the open government licence (UK) requires that certain conditions
are met, eg that data protection rules are not broken and that a form
of attribution is used. The contributor would be in breach of the
licence
.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
do you advocate?
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
: usual disclaimer, though I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer and
this is not legal advice, but merely something written during a rest
from playing minecraft.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
or words to that effect would be even better.
Bear in mind that secondary liability requires something like
authorisation or joint infringement. Neither of those is likely where
a contributor, in good faith, submits data on the basis that OSMF does
not wish to violate IP rights.
--
Francis Davey
- that is in the mind's of those who bother to read
contracts and that is the problem.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
no
direct court of justice authority on the point as far as I know.
In other words: I don't think it would work.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
by 1(b) though.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
to the wording.
Anyway, I hope that helps.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
at the moment place an obligation on OSMF to licence
under one of a series of licences, which would be an odd requirement
if such a licence were superfluous.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
it was good practice to
ask them to agree to a difference licence - just because you can take
something legally doesn't mean you should.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
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
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
as
volunteers counts.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
(of a substantial part...).
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
simply
license
our contributions under an agreed share-alike licence - but that is not part
of
this discussion.) I'm just trying to winkle out exactly what the proposed CTs
are intended to mean.
OK. I understand where you are coming from and thank you for keeping
this focussed.
--
Francis
.
That was by no means a foregone conclusion. Multiply that sort of
uncertainty across the world and you will find it difficult to get
straight answers.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal
a recipe for chaos.
(shrug) maybe. I don't have a feel for the practicalities and its not
really my call.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
time to do so.
See elsewhere on this thread where I suggest a clarified wording.
Yes. I saw. I'm rather busy right now or I'd suggest something myself.
I am somewhat reluctant to do too much suggesting on an open list
since I am a lawyer and I'm not instructed by OSMF.
--
Francis Davey
the latter.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 17 November 2010 16:58, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
If there is no guarantee that data which has been contributed under one
licence will not be removed if it is incompatible with any future licence
chosen, then it will restrict what data can be added
. That is the reason for the perpetual licence. If all that was
needed was that OSMF could use the data under the existing licence,
then you could have a CT just like the old CT's.
NB: I don't have a view on this at all and am not trying to influence policy.
--
Francis Davey
owner.
As you will see from reading the minutes, that doesn't seem to be the case.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
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
about their geography
under the Berne Convention or any WIPO treaty.
It may be that the law of Yugoslavia did contain such a restriction.
If that is so, I don't know about it.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
, would not
necessarily prevent OSMF moving towards a more permissive licence of
its own (with the caveat that imported data may have more rights
associated with it), its not quite the same situation.
Hence my almost right above.
--
Francis Davey
also quite possible that Australian law follows
English law in accepting something like the acceptance of the
contributor terms as being both made in writing and signed. It might
depend on how the transaction is logged - if it isn't, it is less
likely to be so accepted.
--
Francis Davey
up a
website and encouraged and invited people to contribute to a database
I put together on that site, it is not clear that couldn't count as
collection of the items in the database, just because they were
supplied by other people.
--
Francis Davey
to the provisions of this Part, a person infringes
database right in a database if, without the consent of the owner of
the right, he extracts or re-utilises all or a substantial part of the
contents of the database.
Where consent of the owner means the joint consent of all owners.
--
Francis Davey
On 2 September 2010 02:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective).
Pretty much the same thing
something can be a map, a copyrightable database and a (sui
generis right) database at the same time. Who knows.
Sorry, its late and I am meandering a bit. The short point is: none of
this is even slightly unproblematic.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk
On 1 September 2010 14:42, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Francis Davey schrieb:
Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the
copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent
assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to
certain
in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent
assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to
certain exceptions.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
of style.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
of action
to plead, if done well it can put the frighteners on the defendant.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
preventing them from doing so (such as an
agreement to the contrary).
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
conduct struck at the very root of the
contract (i.e. it was a fundamental or repudiatory breach) then I
cannot see any reason why the contractual element of the CT should not
be revocable.
I'm less sure about the licence element.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal
in English law that sort of doctrine
relates particularly to unfair terms and consumers rather than as a
generality.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
is? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask the question.
I realise that you all have a team of lawyers who do/have thought
about all this and that is inherent in the ODBL but I am just curious.
It isn't obvious to me that this is simple.
--
Francis Davey
-law.com/page-5055
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
intellectual creation shall be protected as such by
copyright. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their
eligibility for that protection.
Exactly what this means in practice is certainly a present hot topic.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk
not
protectable.
Sorry to but in (as an outsider) with my legal half-pennyworth but I
hope it is some help. As a copyright lawyer this is all very
fascinating intellectually, but extremely difficult when it comes to
advising clients.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal
On 16 July 2010 17:55, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
But there is quite a high threshold for protection since there is a
requirement that databases so protected by reason of the selection or
arrangement of their contents
of the jurisdiction, i.e.
British English? I have in mind all those uses of license for
licence. I'm happy to go through and make the changes if it would
help 8-).
Good work on this.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
-of-licence in the contributor terms
without actually assigning the copyright seems a suboptimal choice.
Not necessarily.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
and open) which would probably
prevent them suing you.
But of course as it stands that organisation doesn't need OSMF's
licence for your data, since you have already given that to everyone.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
of the copyright, contrast the assignment situation.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
world-wide you might want a team effort
8-).
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
caps paragraphs should be
removed of course 8-).
There's a bunch of stuff I'd rewrite, but its not up to me.
All the best.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
in a certain
way and so as to limit the site owner's liability - I cannot see any
need for such a thing with OSM.
Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really
welcome here, so I'll shut up again.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk
really
welcome here, so I'll shut up again.
I am sorry about the tone of my previous message - I would like to hear more
of your thoughts.
Thanks.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
have
explicit
permission from the rights holder to submit the content.
Why not something like You agree only to add contents which may be
lawfully distributed under [ ] licence or something like that.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
it.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
the licence.
[I am somewhat simplifying I know].
Part of the reason this works is because software copyright law is
subject to a great deal of harmonisation across the EU.
Trying to do the same thing with databases world-wide would be a
harder drafting task.
--
Francis Davey
the precise extent of the case
law (which might shift) might be.
I hope that makes sense.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
100 matches
Mail list logo
