[OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[John Smith]

On 18 June 2011 17:27, davespod <osmlists at dellams.fastmail.fm> wrote:
> What I am saying is that Creative Commons guidance appears to suggest that,
> in the case of music, you can  license a recording under CC-by-SA without
> licensing the composition under CC-by-SA (and indeed it is well established
> in copyright law that composition and recording licensing are separate) . In
> other words, you have not licensed all of the intellectual property present
> in the recording under CC-by-SA, so people cannot distribute, say, the
> lyrics under CC-by-SA on the grounds that they derived them from a CC-by-SA
> recording. If my interpretation is right, why can you not licence an OSM
> rendering under CC-by-SA without licensing the underlying database under
> CC-by-SA?

Nice try, but you also have to take into account the fact that the
ODBL disclaims a lot of copyright on the data since it deems the
database a composition of facts.

> I am not saying I am 100% certain about this (as there is not the well
> established distinction that exists for music), but I would be interested to
> hear reasons why this does not work if the music example does.

I doubt it'd stick, I'm guessing the use you outline above would have
been common place when the Berne Convention was agreed upon, I'm
guessing, but I'd be inclined to think they put exceptions in to the
convetion to cover uses common at the time, this is why there is so
much problems with trying to copyright databases.

(Just for Grant, this doesn't mean I believe map data is uncopyrightable)