[OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
Rob Myers
rob at robmyers.org
Sun Dec 19 22:30:46 GMT 2010
On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote:
>
> What is "the German equivalent
> of a 'derived work'"? And, if you're saying it's different, then how
> can you say it's equivalent?
Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions "adaptation" rather
than "derived work". Your referring to "derived work" is therefore the
use of an equivalent concept in your own legal system.
> It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are
> protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the
> United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same
> as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial
> photograph is a derivative work.
If there isn't a copyright in the original, work that copies from it
cannot infringe that copyright because it doesn't exist.
If there is a copyright then producing a recognisable copy of some part
of it will, modulo fair dealing (or fair use, which is its equivalent
concept) it will infringe on that copyright. Tracing in the tracing
paper sense will certainly do this. It was possible to infringe on
copyright before digital copying existed...
Now if you're talking about tracing ways from photos I would agree,
philosophically, that it is a leap to regard those as derivatives. But
if it's a leap the courts have made or that companies with more lawyers
than OSM've got have made then that's what we have to deal with.
> If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work
> (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of
> the image, which is probably not Microsoft.
You need a licence from someone with sufficient rights to grant you that
licence. Which in this case is Microsoft.
- Rob.
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list