<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.03.2020 um 10:58 schrieb Martin
Koppenhoefer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTC2YqTaK4jByp3dRP1OtrLfz-7JZSLWcZBkS4RLL8ET8Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Mi., 11. März 2020 um
17:21 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <<a
href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" moz-do-not-send="true">simon@poole.ch</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>I would be very very wary of doing anything that
deliberately defaces a web site without consulting with a
local (to the country the web site is in) lawyer,
particularly if the message implies wrong doing."
<p>As I am not a lawyer in any country that a website
could be displayed in, I'm really the wrong person to
ask. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So with "local lawyer" you were aiming at the country
where the website could be displayed in? From my
understanding, these local laws of the enduser only might
matter for the service provider who uses the map tiles,
while for the service that provides the map tiles (assuming
reasonable ToS) their own local law would be the only
relevant, especially when we are talking about B2B? <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The "web site is in" should have been "the country the
business/organisation has its place of business in", as
clarification, but not excluding countries where they might not
have a domicile but do business in.</p>
<p>So say you scribble on a German companies website, if they are
feeling in the mood, you could be sued at least based on "Recht am
eingerichteten und ausgeübten Gewerbebetrieb" for damages (and
naturally to cease doing it)*. I suspect that you would not be
able to reflect this with terms in your ToUs, but as said you need
to consult with counsel in the know to be ale to asses the ricks
of that happening.<br>
</p>
<p>Simon</p>
<p>*just in case you believe I'm just making things up: I was sued
two decades ago as a CEO of company on that base just for stating
in a press release that we intended to start providing services in
Germany in the foreseeable future and having a website that was
accessible there. The underlying problem was a name and trademark
conflict with a German company of the same name (different area of
business though). The net result after multiple 10'000 of Euros of
court, damages and lawyer costs, not to mention renaming the
company, all products and so on, is that I still have a multiple
100'000 Euro per infringement injunction against me personally in
that matter. And that was a case in which we were not clearly
doing something that was wrong, very different than what we are
discussing here.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>