Protection time of ODbL

[Rahkonen Jukka]

Hi,

How long time ODbL will protect the data?  The EU database directive "Directive
96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the
legal protection of databases" gives 15 years protection

"Article 10

Term of protection

1. The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of
the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of
January of the year following the date of completion.

2. In the case of a database which is made available to the public in whatever
manner before expiry of the period provided for in paragraph 1, the term of
protection by that right shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of
the year following the date when the database was first made available to the
public.

3. Any substantial change, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, to the
contents of a database, including any substantial change resulting from the
accumulation of successive additions, deletions or alterations, which would
result in the database being considered to be a substantial new investment,
evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, shall qualify the database resulting
from that investment for its own term of protection."

Is ODbL going to follow the same rule?  

-Jukka Rahkonen-


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Iván Sánchez Ortega-3]

El Martes, 29 de Septiembre de 2009, Jukka Rahkonen escribió:
> How long time ODbL will protect the data?  The EU database directive
> "Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11
> March 1996 on the legal protection of databases" gives 15 years protection

The thing to understand here is that copyleft licenses are an exercise of your
rights. The CC licenses are built on top of your copyrights, and the GPL is
built on top of your rights over software. So far so good.

Thing is, all copyleft licenses won't interfere with existing rights. For
example, in my jurisdiction, you can *quote* *any* copyrighted text in order
to make a reference, or you can make a parody of *any* work. If you apply a
CC-by-nd-nc to the work, it doesn't matter at all, because you can not assert
any rights over people making quotes or parodies.

The same goes with the ODbL. Once you make a planet dump and let 15 years
pass, you can not assert any rights over the dump... so you can not assert
the ODbL. Simple as that.


Just remember: copyleft works because we have rights over stuff, but use those
rights to let people use the works, not to prevent people from using them.


(YMMV, IANAL, you know the drill)

Cheers,
--
----------------------------------
Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan@...>

http://ivan.sanchezortega.es
Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.30-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.10, and PHP
5.2.10-2.2 generating this signature.
Uptime: 22:41:48 up 17 days, 12:13,  2 users,  load average: 1.28, 1.04, 0.80

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> The same goes with the ODbL. Once you make a planet dump and let 15 years
> pass, you can not assert any rights over the dump... so you can not assert
> the ODbL. Simple as that.

Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a
consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected
by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright?
  And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights
over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the
contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in
Europe, also terminates after 15 years?

The contributor terms should be able to answer the copyright question
clearly but I'm apalled to see it has grown into a "legal document"
whose foremost purpose is to *not* answer anything clearly or quickly.

I think it is very sad that we can't even talk plaintext among
ourselves, and to the people we are trying to attract to OSM. I'm sorry
but I start getting that funny sensation when I read sentences (the
"Sentences") where every second word (the "Word") is capitalised
("Capitalised") and repeated, and henceforth every capitalised word must
be read with scrutiny and compared to its definition. Then we end up
writing a "human language version" of the document because nobody can be
bothered to read and understand the original, but we still expect them
to sign the original... well I guess that's how these things go.

Well, after that short diatribe - I can't answer the question for sure.
We require from our contributors that they grant OSMF and any recipient
of the data to do anything that would normally be restricted by
copyright; this sounds like we're waiving any potential copyright
protection over the contents themselves. Right?

Bye
Frederik


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Matt Amos-3]

On 9/29/09, Frederik Ramm <frederik@...> wrote:
> Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>> The same goes with the ODbL. Once you make a planet dump and let 15 years
>> pass, you can not assert any rights over the dump... so you can not assert
>>
>> the ODbL. Simple as that.
>
> Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a
> consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected
> by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright?

yes. see the contributor terms document.

>   And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights
> over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
> invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the
> contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in
> Europe, also terminates after 15 years?

you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection.
that's why we need a contract, because there are no "sui generis"
rights to take advantage of.

again, this is something that can be addressed in the next version of
ODbL - which will hopefully take less than 15 years to arrive.

> The contributor terms should be able to answer the copyright question
> clearly but I'm apalled to see it has grown into a "legal document"
> whose foremost purpose is to *not* answer anything clearly or quickly.

sadly, this seems unavoidable. it appears that in the legal world you
can have clarity or enforceability, but never both. it's our role as a
community to produce "human readable" documents which describe these
legal documents in a way that everyone can understand.

> Well, after that short diatribe - I can't answer the question for sure.
> We require from our contributors that they grant OSMF and any recipient
> of the data to do anything that would normally be restricted by
> copyright; this sounds like we're waiving any potential copyright
> protection over the contents themselves. Right?

yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed.

For the avoidance of Doubt, remember that repeated Extractions of
Insubstantial amounts of the aforementioned Contents are considered to
constitute a Substantial Extract, and are therefore subject to the
Terms of the License. ;-)

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Frederik Ramm]

Matt,

Matt Amos wrote:
>>   And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights
>> over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
>> invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the
>> contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in
>> Europe, also terminates after 15 years?
>
> you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection.
> that's why we need a contract, because there are no "sui generis"
> rights to take advantage of.

I don't think I understand you, or maybe you don't understand me. I'll
try this in individual steps:

1. We want to protect the database as a whole;
2. For countries with database law we can sail under that law;
3. but for countries without we need to use a contractual component;
4. such a contractual component is built into the ODbL;
5. the contractual component doesn't have an explicit time limit;
6. the ODbL doesn't say "the contractual component is only valid for
those countries without database law";
7. which means the contractual component which protects our data from
day one in places like the US is also valid in Europe (where it usually
takes backstage to the stronger database law component);
8. from this it follows that after 15 years, a planet file in Europe is
protected no more or less than a fresh planet file in the US.

So *either* it's free-for-all after 15 years in Europe but then it is
also free-for-all after 1 day in the US.

Clearer now?

> yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed.

Aren't you now mixing database law and copyright terms. Whether or not
something falls under copyright has nothing to with whether it is
substantial related to some kind of database, has it?

For example if OSM user "n80" artfully crafts a way that doesn't even
exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps be protected by
copyright in some jurisdictions, completely independent of the database
and whether or not it is substantial.

If I read the contributor agreement correctly, then we require from
"n80" that he declares never to exercise his copyright. Whether or not,
and for how long, database protection covers his work of art, does not
come into the equation - the copyright question is over when the data is
uploaded. Correct?

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> So *either* it's free-for-all after 15 years in Europe but then it is
> also free-for-all after 1 day in the US.

... *or* the contractual component is still valid in Europe even after
the sui generes protection expires, which validates the OP's question.

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Ed Avis-2]

Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> writes:

>>Have we reached a
>>consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected
>>by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright?
>
>yes. see the contributor terms document.

I think what might have been meant is not 'does the OSM foundation claim
copyright over the map data' but rather 'do we claim that the map data is
a work subject to copyright'.  As far as I know OSM is still making that
claim, and there are no plans to change this.

--
Ed Avis <eda@...>


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[James Livingston-2]

On 30/09/2009, at 7:36 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a
> consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not  
> protected
> by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any  
> copyright?

I don't think that a consensus on what we think matters when  
discussing whether the contents of the database are protected by  
copyright, the laws of various countries matter. In some countries the  
answer is no, in some countries the answer is yes, and in some  
countries it's probably a grey area.


>  And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert  
> rights
> over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
> invoking the idea of a contract

And I believe it has to use the idea of a contact because there are  
countries where there are no database or copyright rights that apply,  
or they are not effecting. I believe the US falls into this category  
because it doesn't have database rights, copyright on facts or  
copyright on databases.


> so where is it written that the
> contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in
> Europe, also terminates after 15 years?

I don't think it is written there. So I would assume that the contact  
part lasts in-perpetuity, and you're not going to get the data after  
15 years in Europe.


[snipped]
> We require from our contributors that they grant OSMF and any  
> recipient
> of the data to do anything that would normally be restricted by
> copyright

Another thing to consider is what happens when The Contents that I'm  
uploading comes from another database, protected by a sui generis  
database right, or copyright on the database? I don't see any mention  
of that in the Contributor Terms.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

James Livingston wrote:

> On 30/09/2009, at 7:36 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a
>> consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not  
>> protected
>> by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any  
>> copyright?
>
> I don't think that a consensus on what we think matters when  
> discussing whether the contents of the database are protected by  
> copyright

Well if you say you don't claim any then for all intents and purposes it
does not matter whether your jurisdiction says that you could claim
copyright or that you couldn't.

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> For example if OSM user "n80" artfully crafts a way that doesn't
> even exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps
> be protected by copyright in some jurisdictions, completely
> independent of the database and whether or not it is substantial.

I think we need to get away from this OSM canard that trivial Easter eggs (we'd spot and delete any non-trivial ones, of course) can be copyrighted or otherwise protected.

People keep reciting it as if it's fact, but it smells of finest bullshit to me - unless someone can actually point to chapter and verse in a major jurisdiction where they might be copyrightable. They wouldn't be in the UK, and UK copyright law is more draconian than pretty much anywhere else.

Easter eggs are there to swing the balance of proof in a case of suspected infringement. Nothing more.

cheers
Richard

[Matt Amos-3]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik@...> wrote:

> Matt Amos wrote:
>>>   And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights
>>> over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
>>> invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the
>>> contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in
>>> Europe, also terminates after 15 years?
>>
>> you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection.
>> that's why we need a contract, because there are no "sui generis"
>> rights to take advantage of.
>
> I don't think I understand you, or maybe you don't understand me. I'll
> try this in individual steps:

<snip>
> Clearer now?

i understood that part of your point the first time around, but i was
correcting your claim that the ODbL "tries ... to assert rights over
the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none". i was
pointing out that ODbL doesn't (and, as you say, can't) claim any
*rights*, so it has to try to emulate them using contract law instead.

maybe this is why lawyers use capitalised terms, like Rights, with a
defined meaning :-)

but i take your point about the variable length of the protection in
different jurisdictions. maybe it's cold comfort that any
copyright-based license has exactly the same problem. i can't find
anywhere in the GPL, for example, which states the length of the term
and countries have wildly varying copyright terms according to [1]
(from life+100 years in mexico down to life+25 in the seychelles or
even 0 in the marshall islands, where copyright law doesn't exist)

>> yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed.
>
> Aren't you now mixing database law and copyright terms. Whether or not
> something falls under copyright has nothing to with whether it is
> substantial related to some kind of database, has it?

well, in some jurisdictions there might be copyright over the data
arrangement, but - you're right - that's not what i meant. i should
have said "database rights".

> For example if OSM user "n80" artfully crafts a way that doesn't even
> exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps be protected by
> copyright in some jurisdictions, completely independent of the database
> and whether or not it is substantial.
>
> If I read the contributor agreement correctly, then we require from
> "n80" that he declares never to exercise his copyright. Whether or not,
> and for how long, database protection covers his work of art, does not
> come into the equation - the copyright question is over when the data is
> uploaded. Correct?

the contributor terms covers the copyright in individual elements,
granting a "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual,
irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over
anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any
other". so, yes; individual data items come with a very liberal
license. this doesn't mean that certain aspects of copyright don't
still exist (e.g: in some jurisdictions an author's moral rights are
non-waivable), but then we can start arguing over whether any
copyright is valid over factual data, etc... etc...

cheers,

matt

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Rahkonen Jukka]

Hi,

Was the answer to my question that nobody knows how long ODbL is protecting the
data and it is impossible to tell it exactly?

-Jukka Rahkonen-


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Was the answer to my question that nobody knows how long ODbL is protecting the
> data and it is impossible to tell it exactly?

No, I think the answer was "forever".

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk