[OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

[Rob Myers]

On 09/03/2010 05:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> I don't think you've understood the answer given by Jordan Hatcher,
> JD, LLM.  He's making the assumption that the extracted data is

It did take me a couple of reads. I'm not used to the ODbL the same way 
I'm used to BY-SA. :-)

> "factual data".  Factual data is not copyrightable no matter how
> substantial (or Substantial) the extract.  "Substantial enough to be
> covered by copyright on the database" doesn't make sense.
> Substantiality of factual data extracted from a database comes into
> play only under database rights law.  The copyright on a database of
> factual information does not extend to the factual data itself.  Or,
> as codified in US copyright law, "The copyright in a compilation [...]
> extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work,
> as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
> and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material."
> Facts are "preexisting material".  You can't copyright facts.

To the extent that copyright exists in the database it's covered by the 
DbCL and to the extent that it exists on the database it's covered by 
the ODbL.

AFAICT the DbCL reduces the effective copyright level of the contents of 
the database to that of facts.

> It's a great answer by Jordan Hatcher.  It rests on the assumption
> that OSM consists solely of factual data (or, at least, that any
> extract from a Produced Work would consist solely of factual data).
> But that's probably a good assumption in many cases (e.g. tracing
> roads without copying the categorization of those roads).

Given the DbCL I'm not sure that the contents being non-factual would 
change things. But if you are concerned about this you should ask on 
odc-discuss.

- Rob.