[OSM-legal-talk] Q&A with a lawyer

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 13/05/09 14:23, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Sounds like: "We have a honest desire to sue the shit out of you if you
>>    violate any of our 52 random rules but we will grudgingly refrain from
>> doing so if laws in your jurisdiction should have the nerve of being
>> against us." ;-)
> 
> That's only if the rest of the licence sounds like "We have a honest 
> desire to sue the shit out of you if you violate any of our 52 random 
> rules". And if you think that, then your problem would not be with the 
> fair use clause.

I don't know if we are perhaps talking about different things. A "fair 
use" clause typically makes an exemption where you know you have a 
copyright, whereas I was talking about us not knowing whether we have one.

I said that I find it questionable to assert copyright where you are not 
sure that you have copyrightable material in the first place; to which 
you replied with your fair use example, which, it occurs to me now, 
seems to be something entirely different.

A fair use clause says "I have copyright but your jurisdiction might 
allow you to do certain things nevertheless, and I think I'll have to 
accept that."

A fair use clause is FUD if it is unclear whether or not you have a 
copyright at all, because it suggests that unless covered by fair use 
rights, the user of your data has to play by your rules.

Bye
Frederik