[OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL

Matt Amos zerebubuth at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 11:19:40 BST 2009


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




More information about the legal-talk mailing list