> Maybe you or someone else on here has a suggestion? Sorry, although I'm aware of this laws for a long time, I never understood how this could work. Open Street Map is a precedent though and I'm not aware of any serious problem they had related to copyright. But they seem to be very conservative and cautious : see for example this topic on tgeir question site https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/9171/sourcing-street-and-road-names-from-other-maps
"Even if it was legal to copy names etc from in copyright published maps (which may depend on the local legislation), we only want to use sources which we have either been explicitly allowed to use in OSM (and have a compatible licence) or have whatever the local equivalent of public domain status is." 2014-09-22 16:52 GMT+02:00 Anthony <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Thomas Douillard < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > Running an automated process to access someone's computer in a way that >> they clearly don't allow is not a good idea. >> >> European database laws are also really on the fact that a protected >> database copy is a copy, whatever the copy process is. Does not matter if >> an automated process took place or if a crowd take facts one by one, once >> there is a significant portion of the datas copied (whatever that means) >> there is a juridical risk. >> > > Yeah, its not clear to me how you could ever produce an ISBN database with > any reasonable level of assurance that it's legit under those rules. With > copyright you find multiple sources and put things in your own words. You > cite your sources, and anyone can check that your sources provide the > *information* which you have restated in your own words. While it's always > possible that you plagiarized one source while citing another, these things > can be discovered, and when two sources use the exact same words, copying > is evident. With sui generis database laws, there's no way to really know > if your multiple sources all are based on the same common source, and > there's no way to "put things in your own words" to ensure that it doesn't > matter. Moreover, the fact that one source has the exact same true factual > information as another doesn't prove that one copied from another. > > Aren't any of these databses copied, at least indirectly, from the > database created by International ISBN Agency? > > In any case, my point was that blatant violation of a TOS is more than > just violation of "a private contract". It's at least potentially something > much more serious. And on that, it matters quite a bit whether it's one > person running an automated process or a group of people accessing the > information bit by bit. The former got a brilliant young Wikimedian > prosecuted. The latter hasn't. > > -- > > By the way, I just read > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights and it's not > clear to me exactly what the Wikimedia policy is with regard to sui generis > database rights. The closest I see is "In the absence of a license, copying > all or a substantial part of a protected database should be avoided." But > what happens when thousands of people, working independently even, each > copy an insubstantial portion of a protected database, and it adds up? I > guess from a practical standpoint it'll be impossible to prove that this is > what happened (unless there's a protected database which *created* the > information in the first place, a la the one created by the International > ISBN Agency). But then what we're really saying is not that you shouldn't > violate European database law, but that you should do it in a way such that > it can't be proven. > > As I said above, I don't know how these laws can possibly be adhered to > with any reasonable level of assurance. Maybe you or someone else on here > has a suggestion? >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
