Re: [OSM-talk] Illegal activity

[Richard Fairhurst]

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

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

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

>Sent: 02 November 2009 11:52 AM
>To: talk@...
>Cc: legal-talk@...
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Illegal activity
>
>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."

Richard, you are clearly in the wrong profession :-)

Cheers

Andy



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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 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.

I have lost thread of what kind of protection exactly you are talking
about, but German copyright law stipulates that photos - and this is
commonly read as "including photos taken from the air through automated
means", have 50 years of copyright protection during which any use (!)
of the photos requires permission from the copyright holder:

http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/72.html

Some lawyers say that because German copyright requires a person as the
rights owner, any kind of automated photography cannot be copyrighted.
Others, and they seem to form the majority, say that the person who
"conditions" the machinery used to take the photos becomes the rights
owner. There is some German-language discussion of this here:
http://www.schmunzelkunst.de/saq2.htm#luftbild

Bye
Frederik



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