[OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it.

Then show why I'm wrong, don't say that I may be right in some
jurisdictions and you aren't sure if I'm right in others.

> For example in Germany simple "Lichtbilder"  (which would include areial
> photographs) have the same protection as photographic works of art
> ("Lichtbildwerke") with the exception of the proctection term. And there is
> at least one German higher court judgement in which tracing a non-artistic
> photograph was considered copyright infringement

None of that even shows that German courts use the term "derivative
work", let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the
definition of that term.  And the license being provided by Microsoft
isn't even governed under the laws of Germany anyway.

If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see
that it said that the Microsoft license "makes no grants of rights to
publish derived works".  It didn't say anything about Lichtbilder laws
in Germany.

> PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right
> now is going on in -Germany-

And that matters why, exactly?  Why would Microsoft issue a license,
governed under the laws of the US, giving people permission to do
something which is not restricted under US law, and is not something
which Microsoft owns the rights to anyway?