[OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Francis Davey]

2011/6/7 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
>
> It's not even clear that more "is caught by" the ODbL worldwide, in
> part because the ODbL explicitly states that it "does not cover the
> copyright over the Contents independent of this Database", and it is
> unclear what "the Contents independent of this Database" means (and
> this too might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even though in
> theory it shouldn't).

[see below]

>
> Also, ODbL is explicitly a contract, and not a license, which might
> mean that in some jurisdictions (I'm thinking the United States)
> violations will be governed by contract law and not copyright law.
> This would mean no injunctions and no punitive damages.
>

Right, so remedies may vary. Injunctions are available for breach of
contract (well orders for specific performance anyway) in England, but
not punitive damages. Some civil law jurisdictions won't allow
punitive damages even for breach of copyright. How *effective* ODbL
(or CC for that matter) might be is a separate and equally vexed
question to the question of what is caught.

-- 
Francis Davey