warning: not a lawyer 1 Nov 2019, 10:35 by [email protected]:
>> For ABC I would not have chosen the term “require” from XYZ but they >> probably must make them aware >> that in the product they are selling there are third party rights >> (OpenStreetMap’s copyright) which come >> with certain obligations (ODbL). >> > > In my example, OSM copyright doesn't apply to XYZ because it's simply not > making a copy of OSM data. > The ABC company is taking OSM data and making a copy (map tiles). It's ABC > that is serving the map tiles. > It's ABC (and only ABC) that's actually accessing OSM data, so it's ABC (and > only ABC) that has any > copyright exposure. > ABC is making and distributing derivative works of OSM data. > It's as if I took your famous photograph and made a million prints and then > advertised them for sale at stores throughout the world. The stores are not > making copies of your photograph... they're just passing > along information about a product. It's me who would be on the hook for the > copyright violation, because > it's me who made the copies without right. > I think that you mix two things: (1) Yes, there are some protection for unknowingly distributing materials violating copyrights (for example exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries in DMCA). I am not sure whatever in your case shops would be liable or not - probably depends on country and whatever your claim for owning copyright was credible and other factors. (2) In case of one person committing copyright violation/creating derivative works original copyright (and copyright-like restrictions) still apply (though there is fun with de minimis, fair use etc that as usual may or may not apply).
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
