Pieren wrote: > It's not the question about laws in France, Germany or US vs England. > It's the question to know if OSM database can survive if it contains > data from illegal sources, independently of the country. > > Richard is convinced that the content of the photos is not protected > and I agree on that point. But he just decides to ignore all the > investments spent to rectify and georeference these photos on which > his derivative work is based. And this investment and work is > protected.
Heh. I haven't decided to ignore it. I'm just not 100% convinced as yet that it alters the clear lead set out by Bauman v Fussell. US law is unambiguous: the doctrine of idea-expression merger means that rectification doesn't make any difference. UK law is not clear, and you have to interpret sweat-of-the-brow in the light of Bauman v Fussell and Antiquesportfolio v Fitch. Canada is very interesting: Weetman v Baldwin (heard in a fairly junior court) cites "accuracy not previously attained by other mapmakers of the region in question... facilitated by a particular process pioneered by a mapmaker" which can be interpreted in wild and exciting ways. I'm not particularly au fait with national copyright law in mainland Europe. Doubtless you can answer on France: I can't see anything in German law that would give protection. It's been suggested that EU database right could also give some protection to rectification. I can't yet see it myself (particularly in light of BHB vs William Hill), but then, database right is really the modern day equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein Question: "Only three people," said Palmerston, "have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business: the Prince Consort, who is dead; a German professor, who has gone mad; and I, who have forgotten all about it." Follow-ups to legal-talk. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
