On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> wrote: > Australian copyright law recognises that copyright can subsist in > compilation of facts. Once copyright subsists, the only test is > "substantial part".
Ok, for the sake of argument, how would provider A demonstrate that OSM's data was made by copying its "compilation of facts", when providers B and C contain exactly the same facts? > If everyone copied just one street name, that's > around 200,000 street names copied. Is that substantial? In addition > to that we have the terms of service that attempt to prevent copying > any part of them, specifically prohibiting building a databases of > places or listings. Certainly - but breaching terms of service is not copyright infringement. I also have to say, there's a big grey area between "copying street names to build a database" and "looking up street names out of curiosity, while also building a database". I'm not trying to be cute - I genuinely do this. (Although no one has asked, I should point out, I don't actually make a habit of copying street names from other sources. I occasionally look up the names of major roads, but cross-check them in a few sources. Anyone looking at my contributions history will see large numbers of unnamed streets.) Steve _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
