On 2/9/10, David Murn <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 10:48 +1000, John Smith wrote: > > On 9 February 2010 10:37, David Murn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thats probably a good thing. 'skills' also includes knowing how the OSM > > > licence works, and clicking on the 'terms of use' link on the page you > > > linked... > > > > Except copyright law in Australia since the IceTV ruling is unlikely > > to cover simple databases of fact. > > Oh, thanks for that. I didnt realise that OSM had moved to Australia, > and was now governed by Australian law. Well, the original database being reproduced is Australian. There's a broader issue of "copyright havens" here where some countries have weaker or no interlectual property protection - see para 20 of http://www.cptech.org/ecom/hague/Ginsburg2000.pdf . That paper recommends moving to a model where the server hosting the database on the Internet is the jurisdiction where infringement would be established but I presume that is not an internationally recognised position yet.
> > If there were any court rulings that changed our right to access/use > other peoples content, theres a lot better things to import than > woolworths locations, say for example copyrighted street centrelines. I would assume most geo-databases that you can access (or purchase access to) are additionally protected by contract law. There are additional clauses in the Terms of Use > Also what is this 'IceTV ruling'? I provide you with an opinion and > details of why its so, you just say 'since XYZ ruling'. The ruling is: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/14.html And an analysis of the copyright issues: http://ipwars.com/2009/04/22/icetv-second-look/ The conclusion was "there must be some 'creative spark' or exercise of 'skill and judgment' before a work is sufficiently 'original' for the subsistence of copyright.". > > What if theyve put an easter-egg into that 'database of fact'? Suddenly > they can prove you took their entire dataset. Or they can just refer to this publically accessable email discussion. > > Another concern I have, is that if the law works one way, whats to stop > someone deriving a list of info from OSM, then adding it to their > project (google map-maker for example), then claiming that its okay > because "IceTV" says so. Yes. That would be an argument why we need a new licencing arrangement like ODbL where there's a contract protecting reproduction as well as database rights/copyright where they exist. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
