[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright on layers

[Emil Vaughan]

On 7/10/06, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Emil Vaughan" <emil79 at gmail.com>
> To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:52 PM
> Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright on layers
>
>
> > Hi all, with reference to the recent discussion on licenses, I think
> > it would be a good idea to establish what is considered a derivative
> > work of OSM's map.
>
> I am coming round to the view that it will never be possible to adequately
> define what is considered a derivative work of OSM data.
>
> The reason for this is that the possible uses of OSM data ore so varied that
> one "definition" could not possibly cover them all.
>
> As proof of this you only have to look at how long the "what is derived
> work" question has been running on OSM. If we ourselves can not decide by
> now what is a derived work, then no lawyer, judge, or potential user of OSM
> data is going to be able to.
>
> >
> > I believe that layers, i.e. using the map to obtain a set of
> > coordinates of places of interest, should not be regarded as a
> > derivative work.
> >
>
> This above sounds nice in theory.  What if one of the layers in fact
> contained exactly the same sort of information that is held in OSM.  However
> lets say I was doing some mapping myself.
>
> Rather than contribute "my" data to OSM I could have one layer with all OSM
> derived data, and one layer of all my data. If additional layers were not
> covered by the OSM license, then in this example all "my" data would not
> have to be redistributed, and you may as well forget about the SA part of
> the license.
>
>
> > This is because I believe looking things up on a map doesn't create a
> > derivative work of that map. (I feel strongly about this!)
> >
> > I believe this view is consistent with the law, however it's not
> > consistent with the views of the Ordnance Survey. As there is some
> > confusion in the matter, I think it should be explicitly stated that
> > the OSM will not claim copyright over any layers created from the map.
> >
> > What do people think?
> >
> > Emil
>
>
> Ultimately, I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that either:
>
> 1) all OSM data should be released as public domain, and then we can all
> forget about licensing;
>
> or
>
> 2)  have a license similar to CC-BY-SA, but allow specific exclusions where
> the use of OSM data combined with "something else" does not lead to the
> "something else" having to released under CC-BY-SA. These specific
> exclusions would then either
>
> i) have to be decided by the OSM Foundation on a case by case basis,
> dependent upon who was using the data, what way it was being used, and what
> it was being combined with; and / or
>
> ii) examples of specific uses could be given by OSMF which would not require
> the "something else" having to released under CC-BY-SA.
>
> Neither option is ideal.
>
> David


I think that using the osm to create a set of coordinates doesn't
constitute a derivative work. And the same for an OS map: after all
people to this with Google Maps.

And to say that it /does/ create a derivative work, I believe is to
try to expand the scope of copyright law: something the OS is guilty
of.

(Clearly if you took enough coordinates to entirely reproduce the map,
that's a different story.)

But if someone takes the coordinates of say, pubs in london, then I
don't think any copyright is infringed. The reason for this is that it
is basically just factual information. It would be as absurd as when
the OS claim that if you copy street names from their maps it's a
copyright infringement.

Emil